We now do push notifications and missed message emails
for offline users who are subscribed to the stream for
a message that has been edited, but we short circuit
the offline-notification logic for any user who presumably
would have already received a notification on the original
message.
This effectively boils down to sending notifications to newly
mentioned users. The motivating use case here is that you
forget to mention somebody in a message, and then you edit
the message to mention the person. If they are offline, they
will now get pushed notifications and missed message emails,
with some minor caveats.
We try to mostly use the same techniques here as the
send-message code path, and we share common code with the
send-message path once we get to the Tornado layer and call
maybe_enqueue_notifications.
The major places where we differ are in a function called
maybe_enqueue_notifications_for_message_update, and the top
of that function short circuits a bunch of cases where we
can mostly assume that the original message had an offline
notification.
We can expect a couple changes in the future:
* Requirements may change here, and it might make sense
to send offline notifications on the update side even
in circumstances where the original message had a
notification.
* We may track more notifications in a DB model, which
may simplify our short-circuit logic.
In the view/action layer, we already had two separate codepaths
for send-message and update-message, but this mostly echoes
what the send-message path does in terms of collecting data
about recipients.
This ensures that as we expand the logic for under what circumstances
email and push notifications should be sent, we can be confident about
this code path always doing the right thing.
This fixes a problem introduced in the recent refactoring where
`triggers` would not be set correctly when a push or email
notification was triggered by missedmessage_hook.
Fixes#6612.
Now, the two code paths do the same thing for this check.
It seems like there may be more work to do here, in that
wildcard_mentioned messages seem to not be eligible for sending
email/push notifications. We probably want to add some logic there
for the user doing the mention to control whether or not it does.
This is a nonfunctional refactor, designed primarily to make it
simpler to extend this code path when we later add support for
controlling whether email notifications go out on stream messages.
Previously, due to a logic bug, this feature would also send email
notifications for all messages on the stream, which is definitely not
the intent. The recent refactoring we just did makes the logic more
obvious.
This creates a lot of logging noise, and also causes confusion
for new contributors when something isn't working as they expect
and they aren't sure if this message is normal or an error.
Usually a small minority of users are eligible to receive missed
message emails or mobile notifications.
We now filter users first before hitting UserPresence to find idle
users. We also simply check for the existence of recent activity
rather than borrowing the more complicated data structures that we
use for the buddy list.
Because the Redis client returns exclusively bytes -- even for
hash keys -- even on Python 3, the test `'response' in status`
was always returning false, and the line that tries to decode
as JSON was never running, so we were passing `response`
through as a `bytes` object encoding some JSON.
I'm not sure what the impact of this bug was, and in particular
whether something downstream would have fudged it to make up for
this error.
This fixes the original issue that #5598 was the root cause of; when
the user returns to a Zulip browser tab after they've been idle past
the timeout (10 min, per IDLE_EVENT_QUEUE_TIMEOUT_SECS), we now
correctly reload the page even if they're using Zulip in German or
another non-English language where we have a translation for the
relevant error message.
The one purpose this exception was serving was to carry a message
in `msg`. We can do that with `JsonableError`, and as a bonus replace
a repetition of the familiar "'result': 'error', ..." JSON pattern
with a call to a common implementation.
Also wrap the error messages for translation -- we hadn't been doing
that, oops. Our linter notices that issue now that it's the familiar
JsonableError class.
There's one other potential change in behavior here: this
except-clause might now catch a JsonableError raised from some other
code. That seems like a bonus, if so; the handler isn't doing
anything actually specific to this code, and the more exceptions it
successfully turns into proper error responses to the client and lines
in the log, the better.
This provides the main infrastructure for fixing #5598. From here,
it's a matter of on the one hand upgrading exception handlers -- the
many except-blocks in the codebase that look for JsonableError -- to
look beyond the string `msg` and pass on the machine-readable full
error information to their various downstream recipients, and on the
other hand adjusting places where we raise errors to take advantage
of this mechanism to give the errors structured details.
In an ideal future, I think all exception handlers that look (or
should look) for a JsonableError would use its contents in structured
form, never mentioning `msg`; but the majority of error sites might
continue to just instantiate JsonableError with a string message. The
latter is the simplest thing to do, and probably most error types will
never have code looking for them specifically.
Because the new API refactors the `to_json_error_msg` method which was
designed for subclasses to override, update the 4 subclasses that did
so to take full advantage of the new API instead.
In order to benefit from the modern conveniences of type-checking,
add concrete, non-Any types to the interface for JsonableError.
Relatedly, there's no need at this point to duck-type things at
the places where we receive a JsonableError and try to use it.
Simplify those by using straightforward standard typing.
Tornado reloads the app whenever there is a change in code. Due to this,
new connection is created to the client which also results in a new
channel. To avoid creating two channels for the queue in the RabbitMQ
broker we should close the old channel. Otherwise messages sent to the
queue will be distributed among these two channels in a round robin
scheme and we will end up losing one message since one of the channels
doesn't have an active consumer.
This commit closes the connection to the queue whenever Tornado reloads
the application using add_reload_hook().
Fixes#5824.
I pushed a bunch of commits that attempted to introduce
the concept of `client_message_id` into our server, as
part of cleaning up our codepaths related to messages you
sent (both for the locally echoed case and for the host
case).
When we deployed this, we had some strange failures involving
double-echoed messages and issues advancing the pointer that appeared
related to #5779. We didn't get to the bottom of exactly why the PR
caused havoc, but I decided there was a cleaner approach, anyway.
We are deprecating local_id/local_message_id on the Python server.
Instead of the server knowing about the client's implementation of
local id, with the message id = 9999.01 scheme, we just send the
server an opaque id to send back to us.
This commit changes the name from local_id -> client_message_id,
but it doesn't change the actual values passed yet.
The goal for client_key in future commits will be to:
* Have it for all messages, not just locally rendered messages
* Not have it overlap with server-side message ids.
The history behind local_id having numbers like 9999.01 is that
they are actually interim message ids and the numerical value is
used for rendering the message list when we do client-side rendering.
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
rht
Greg Price
Sarah
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
Umair Khan
Steve Howell
Aditya Bansal
Vaida Plankyte