This replaces the temporary (and testless) fix in
24b1439e93 with a more permanent
fix.
Instead of checking if the user is a bot just before
sending the notifications, we now just don't enqueue
notifications for bots. This is done by sending a list
of bot IDs to the event_queue code, just like other
lists which are used for creating NotificationData objects.
Credit @andersk for the test code in `test_notification_data.py`.
We make zero invalid value for message_content_delete_limit_seconds and
for handling the case of "Allow to delete message any time", the API-level
value of message_content_delete_limit_seconds is "anytime" and "None"
as the DB-level value. We also use these values for message retention
setting, so it helps maintain consistency.
These changes are all independent of each other; I just didn’t feel
like making dozens of commits for them.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Previously, we checked for the `enable_offline_email_notifications` and
`enable_offline_push_notifications` settings (which determine whether the
user will receive notifications for PMs and mentions) just before sending
notifications. This has a few problem:
1. We do not have access to all the user settings in the notification
handlers (`handle_missedmessage_emails` and `handle_push_notifications`),
and therefore, we cannot correctly determine whether the notification should
be sent. Checks like the following which existed previously, will, for
example, incorrectly not send notifications even when stream email
notifications are enabled-
```
if not receives_offline_email_notifications(user_profile):
return
```
With this commit, we simply do not enqueue notifications if the "offline"
settings are disabled, which fixes that bug.
Additionally, this also fixes a bug with the "online push notifications"
feature, which was, if someone were to:
* turn off notifications for PMs and mentions (`enable_offline_push_notifications`)
* turn on stream push notifications (`enable_stream_push_notifications`)
* turn on "online push" (`enable_online_push_notifications`)
then, they would still receive notifications for PMs when online.
This isn't how the "online push enabled" feature is supposed to work;
it should only act as a wrapper around the other notification settings.
The buggy code was this in `handle_push_notifications`:
```
if not (
receives_offline_push_notifications(user_profile)
or receives_online_push_notifications(user_profile)
):
return
// send notifications
```
This commit removes that code, and extends our `notification_data.py` logic
to cover this case, along with tests.
2. The name for these settings is slightly misleading. They essentially
talk about "what to send notifications for" (PMs and mentions), and not
"when to send notifications" (offline). This commit improves this condition
by restricting the use of this term only to the database field, and using
clearer names everywhere else. This distinction will be important to have
non-confusing code when we implement multiple options for notifications
in the future as dropdown (never/when offline/when offline or online, etc).
3. We should ideally re-check all notification settings just before the
notifications are sent. This is especially important for email notifications,
which may be sent after a long time after the message was sent. We will
in the future add code to thoroughly re-check settings before sending
notifications in a clean manner, but temporarily not re-checking isn't
a terrible scenario either.
The reason for this bug is because of different striping
processes in the backend and frontend, i.e The frontend
checks if the message's `raw_content` has changed to
decide if the `content` of the message should be sent in
the request to the backend, or not. So, it removes the
leading new line ('\n') from the message `raw_content`
when checking it, which is causing the "Error saving edit:
You don't have permission to edit this message" error.
This commit fixes it by removing the leading new line
when cleaning message content.
The bug was explained by @punchagan and its solution
by @timabbott.
We will later use this data to include text like:
`<sender> mentioned @<user_group>` instead of the current
`<sender> mentioned you` when someone mentions a user group
the current user is a part of in email/push notification.
Part of #13080.
This adds a new class called MessageRenderingResult to contain the
additional properties we added to the Message object (like alert_words)
as well as the rendered content to ensure typesafe reference. No
behavioral change is made except changes in typing.
This is a preparatory change for adding django-stubs to the backend.
Related: #18777
Further commits will start locking the message rows while
adding related fields like reactions or submessages,
to handle races caused by deleting the message itself at the
same time.
The message locking implemented then will create a possibility
of deadlocks, where the related field transaction holds a lock
on the message row, and the message-delete transaction holds a
lock on the database row of the related field (which will also
need to be deleted when the message is deleted), and both
transactions wait for each other.
To prevent such a deadlock, we lock the message itself while
it is being deleted, so that the message-delete transaction
will have to wait till the other transaction (which is about
to delete the related field, and also holds a lock on the
message row) commits.
https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/near/1185943 has more details.
This will offer users who are self-hosting to adjust
this value. Moreover, this will help to reduce the
overall time taken to test `test_markdown.py` (since
this can be now overridden with `override_settings`
Django decorator).
This is done as a prep commit for #18641.
The old name `push_notify_user_ids` was misleading, because
it does not contain user ids which should be notified for
the current message, but rather user ids who have the online
push notifications setting enabled.
When the Tornado server is restarted during an upgrade, if
server has old events with the `push_notify_user_ids` fields,
the server will throw error after this rename. Hence, we need
to explicitly handle such cases while processing the event.
The command:
codespell --skip='./locale,*.svg,./docs/translating,postgresql.conf.template.erb,.*fixtures,./yarn.lock,./docs/THIRDPARTY,./tools/setup/emoji/emoji_names.py,./tools/setup/emoji/emoji_map.json,./zerver/management/data/unified_reactions.json' --ignore-words=codespell_ignore_words.txt .
The content of codespell_ignore_words:
```
te
ans
pullrequest
ist
cros
wit
nwe
circularly
ned
ba
ressemble
ser
sur
hel
fpr
alls
nd
ot
```
This completes the effort to make it possible to use
bulk_access_message in contexts where there are more than a handful of
messages without creating performance issues.
If the caller has already fetched the Stream or subscription details
for the user, those can be passed to has_message_access to avoid extra
database queries.
model__id syntax implies needing a JOIN on the model table to fetch the
id. That's usually redundant, because the first table in the query
simply has a 'model_id' column, so the id can be fetched directly.
Django is actually smart enough to not do those redundant joins, but we
should still avoid this misguided syntax.
The exceptions are ManytoMany fields and queries doing a backward
relationship lookup. If "streams" is a many-to-many relationship, then
streams_id is invalid - streams__id syntax is needed. If "y" is a
foreign fields from X to Y:
class X:
y = models.ForeignKey(Y)
then object x of class X has the field x.y_id, but y of class Y doesn't
have y.x_id. Thus Y queries need to be done like
Y.objects.filter(x__id__in=some_list)
django.utils.translation.ugettext is a deprecated alias of
django.utils.translation.gettext as of Django 3.0, and will be removed
in Django 4.0.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This is preparatory work for investigating reports of missing unread
messages.
It's a little surprising that not test failed after adding the code
without API documentation.
Co-Author-By: Tushar Upadhyay (tushar912).
This commit renames the is_new_member property in models.py
to is_provisional_member which will return true for any user
who is not a full member. We will add a condition in further
commit such that this returns 'False' for a moderator as we
will initially give all the rights to moderator that a full
member has.
user_profile.id was confused for user_profile.recipient_id. These bugs
are particularly sneaky as they can go undetected by tests due to ids of
objects accidentally coinciding. We add a mitigation for this class of
mistakes by shifting the Recipient.id sequence in test db.
This was introduced in dda3ff41e1.
On the rare occasion where user_profile.id would coincide with
recipient_id passed to the function, we would return the wrong value.
That is, instead of correctly returning recipient_id, we would return
sender.recipient_id - recipient id of the sender of the message, thus
possibly returning user_profile.recipient_id (if user_profile is the
sender) - exactly the situation the function wanted to avoid
with the `if recipient_id == my_recipient_id:` if. Ultimately resulting
in incorrect/malformed data in
state['raw_recent_private_conversations'].
We change the return type of check_message to be dataclass instead of
Dict[str, Any]. This refactoring helps us to understand the context of the
data structure returned by check_message clearly which was not possible
when using Dict.
SendMessageRequest class is added in zerver/lib/message.py inspite of it
not being used in that file itself just to maintain consistency as other
TypedDicts and dataclasses are defined in that file and to avoid circular
dependency as SendMessageRequest is being used in lib/widget.py as well.
We also rename local variable to 'send_request' for accessing
SendMessageRequest objects.
We always want to do these at the same time. Previously, message
editing did too much stripping (fixes#16837) and failed to check for
NUL bytes.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
In 709493cd75 (Feb 2017)
I added code to render_markdown that re-fetched the
sender of the message, to detect whether the message is
a bot.
It's better to just let the ORM fetch this. The
message object should already have sender.
The diff makes it look like we are saving round trips
to the database, which is true in some cases. For
the main message-send codepath, though, we are only
saving a trip to memcached, since the middleware
will have put our sender's user object into the
cache. The test_message_send test calls internally
to check_send_stream_message, so it was actually
hitting the database in render_markdown (prior to
my change).
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
sahil839
Aman Agrawal
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Riken Shah
PIG208
akshatdalton
rht
Mateusz Mandera