MigrationsTestCase is intentionally omitted from this, since migrations
tests are different in their nature and so whatever setUp()
ZulipTestCase may do in the future, MigrationsTestCase may not
necessarily want to replicate.
One small change in behavior is that this creates an array with all the
row_objects at once, rather than creating them 1000 at a time.
That should be fine, given that the client batches these in units of
10000 anyway, and so we're just creating 10K rows of a relatively
small data structure in Python code here.
Fixes#1727.
With the server down, apply migrations 0245 and 0246. 0246 will remove
the pub_date column, so it's essential that the previous migrations
ran correctly to copy data before running this.
There's no reason for this to be a category of error that emails the
server administrator, since there's a good chance that fixing it will
need to be done in the Zulip codebase, not administrator action.
Historically, Zulip's implementation of wildcard mentions never
triggered either email or push notifications, instead being limited to
desktop notifications and the "mentions" counter.
We fix this just by plumbing the "wildcard_mentioned" flag through our
system.
Implements much of
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/6040#issuecomment-510157264.
We're also now ready to seriously work on #3750.
Previous cleanups (mostly the removals of Python __future__ imports)
were done in a way that introduced leading newlines. Delete leading
newlines from all files, except static/assets/zulip-emoji/NOTICE,
which is a verbatim copy of the Apache 2.0 license.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
This provides a clean warning and 40x error, rather than a 500, for
this corner case which is very likely user error.
The test here is awkward because we have to work around
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/12362.
This contains email of the user to whom notification is being
send. This has not been used in any past mobile releases, so it is
safe to remove it.
As user_id will be stable for the user, but not email. So it's better to
start consuming `user_id` instead of email on mobile.
When a bunch of messages with active notifications are all read at
once -- e.g. by the user choosing to mark all messages, or all in a
stream, as read, or just scrolling quickly through a PM conversation
-- there can be a large batch of this information to convey. Doing it
in a single GCM/FCM message is better for server congestion, and for
the device's battery.
The corresponding client-side logic is in zulip/zulip-mobile#3343 .
Existing clients today only understand one message ID at a time; so
accommodate them by sending individual GCM/FCM messages up to an
arbitrary threshold, with the rest only as a batch.
Also add an explicit test for this logic. The existing tests
that happen to cause this function to run don't exercise the
last condition, so without a new test `--coverage` complains.
Since da8f4bc0e back in August, this control flow has caused
`flags.active_mobile_push_notification` to be cleared if we don't send
these `remove` messages at all, and if we send them directly to GCM...
but not if we send them via the Zulip notification bouncer.
As a result, on a server configured to send `remove` notification-messages
via the bouncer, we accumulate "active" messages and never clear them.
If the user then does `mark_all_as_read`, we end up sending a `remove`
for each of those messages again, and all in one giant burst. We've
seen puzzling bursts of hundreds of removals pass through the bouncer
since turning on removals on chat.zulip.org; it's likely many of them
are caused by this bug.
This issue was made more acute with f4478aad5, which unconditionally
enabled removals.
Test added by tabbott.
The client-side fix to make these not a problem was in release
16.2.96, of 2018-08-22. We've been sending them from the
development community server chat.zulip.org since 2018-11-29.
We started forcing clients to upgrade with commit fb7bfbe9a,
deployed 2018-12-05 to zulipchat.com.
(The mobile app unconditionally makes a request to a route on
zulipchat.com to check for this kind of forced upgrade, so that
applies to mobile users of any Zulip server.)
So at this point it's long past safe for us to unconditionally
send these. Hardwire the old `SEND_REMOVE_PUSH_NOTIFICATIONS`
setting to True, and simplify it out.
I was hoping this would make things faster... it does, but sadly only
by about 70ms, 5% of this file's test runtime.
It sure does make this file rather less action-at-a-distance, though,
as well as fixing some duplication.
If we make a practice on the Zulip server of always explicitly setting
the desired priority, then when an old server doesn't set the priority
we can reasonably have the bouncer make a guess.
That is, this allows a Zulip server to now set the `priority`; but if
it doesn't, we use upstream's default value, which has the same effect
as we've always previously had by not setting it at all.
But when this is deployed to the push notifications bouncer server, it
does allow another server to set priority when pushing notifications
through the bouncer.
This adds a new API for sending basic analytics data (number of users,
number of messages sent) from a Zulip server to the Zulip Cloud
central analytics database, which will make it possible for servers to
elect to have their usage numbers counted in published stats on the
size of the Zulip ecosystem.
This checks if push_notification_enabled() is set to false in
handle_push_notification and adds an early return statement.
This is a significant performance optimization for our unit tests
because the push notifications code path does a number of database
queries, and this migration means we don't end up doing those queries
the hundreds of times we send PMs or mentions in our tests where we're
not trying to test the push notifications functionality.
This should also have a small message sending scalability improvement
for any Zulip servers without push notifications enabled.
Tweaked by tabbott to fix a few small issues.
Fixes#10895.
While reviewing #11012, I discovered a nondeterministic result for
test_signup, which I tracked down to specifically this triple of tests
failing when run in this order:
test-backend GCMSuccessTest \
zerver.tests.test_push_notifications.TestAPNs.test_get_apns_client \
zerver.tests.test_signup.LoginTest.test_register
with a query count mismatch like this:
expected length: 73
actual length: 79
Comparing the list of queries, it's clear that test_register was
seeing `push_notifications_enabled()` returning True in this test order.
It's not clear why GCMSuccessTest was required here (it was!), but
further debugging determined the problem was that
`test_get_apns_client` left the _apns_client initialization system in
a state where get_apns_client would return a non-None value, resulting
in push_notifications_enabled() returning True for future tests.
The immediate fix is to just reset the `_apns_client` and
`_apns_client_initializedstate` state properly after the test runs;
but arguably we should do a larger refactor to make this less
fragile.
If a user deletes message between when it triggered a potential push
notification for another user, and when that notification was actually
sent, we'd end up with a situation where the `Message` table didn't
have an entry for the requested message ID.
The clean fix for this is to still throw an exception in the event
that the message doesn't exist at all, but if it exists in
ArchivedMessage, don't throw a user-facing exception.
Mateusz Mandera
Rishi Gupta
Wyatt Hoodes
Tim Abbott
Rohitt Vashishtha
okmanl
Anders Kaseorg
Vishwesh Jainkuniya
Greg Price
Anders Kaseorg
kunal-mohta
ishanrai05