This makes it super easy for frontend code using this view code to
produce a nice display of the history.
This also fixes an off-by-one error with the timestamps.
Based on work by Kartik Maji in #1204.
This has a few significant changes from the original version:
* We correctly handle filling in data for topic edits
* Has a complete test suite verifying correctness of the logic
* Currently, it doesn't include a special "start" entry
Things we may want to further change include:
* Adding a special "start" entry.
* Reversing the order of the history data returned for clarity.
I dug into why we never did this before, and it turns out we did, but
using `$.trim()` (which removes leading whitespace as well!). When
removing the `$.trim()` usage.
Fixes#3294.
Bump up max length queries in `test_bulk_message_fetching()` to 11
in `zerver/tests/test_messages.py` to avoid test failing when run
this test alone.
Fixes#3087.
Finishes the refactoring started in c1bbd8d. The goal of the refactoring is
to change the argument to get_realm from a Realm.domain to a
Realm.string_id. The steps were
* Add a new function, get_realm_by_string_id.
* Change all calls to get_realm to use get_realm_by_string_id instead.
* Remove get_realm.
* (This commit) Rename get_realm_by_string_id to get_realm.
Part of a larger migration to remove the Realm.domain field entirely.
We recently made it so that a cross-realm bot can only send
messages to one realm at a time. (It can send to a realm
outside of its offical realm, but only one of them.) This
test adds coverage for that.
Previously, we set restrict_to_domain and invite_required differently
depending on whether we were setting up a community or a corporate
realm. Setting restrict_to_domain requires validation on the domain of the
user's email, which is messy in the web realm creation flow, since we
validate the user's email before knowing whether the user intends to set up
a corporate or community realm. The simplest solution is to have the realm
creation flow impose as few restrictions as possible (community defaults),
and then worry about restrict_to_domain etc. after the user is already in.
We set the test suite to explictly use the old defaults, since several of
the tests depend on the old defaults.
This commit adds a database migration.
We now send dictionaries for cross-realm bots. This led to the
following changes:
* Create get_cross_realm_dicts() in actions.py.
* Rename the page_params field to cross_realm_bots.
* Fix some back end tests.
* Add cross_realm_dict to people.js.
* Call people.add for cross-realm bots (if they are not already part of the realm).
* Remove hack to add in feedback@zulip.com on the client side.
* Add people.is_cross_realm_email() and use it in compose.js.
* Remove util.string_in_list_case_insensitive().
Adds a database migration, adds a new string_id argument to the management
realm creation command, and adds a short name field to the web realm
creation form when REALMS_HAVE_SUBDOMAINS is False.
We now simply exclude all cross-realm bots from the set of emails
under consideration, and then if the remaining emails are all in
the same realm, we're good.
This fix changes two behaviors:
* You can no longer send a PM to an ordinary user in another realm
by piggy-backing a cross-realm bot on to the message. (This was
basically a bug, but it would never manifest under current
configurations.)
* You will be able to send PMs to multiple cross-realm bots at once.
(This was an arbitrary restriction. We don't really care about this
scenario much yet, and it fell out of the new implementation.)
We can currently send a PM to a user in another realm, as long
as we copy a cross-realm bot from the same realm. This loophole
doesn't yet affect us in practice--all cross-realm bots are
generally configured for the "admin" realm like the old zulip.com--
but we should lock it down in a subsequent commit.
Having each condition in a separate test was confusing to read,
especially since the tests were doing inconsistent setup, sometimes
calling user2 the user from 2.example.com realm and other times
calling user2 the cross-bot realm, etc.
This is a preliminary step towards eliminating the realm.domain field
in favor of realm.subdomain. Includes a database migration to create
these for existing realms.
With reactions and other upcoming features, we'll be adding several
places where we need to check whether a particular user can access a
particular message. It's best to just have a single helper function
for this purpose that we can use everywhere.
This pulls message-related code from models.py into a new
module called message.py, and it starts to break some bugdown
dependencies. All the methods here are basically related to
serializing Message objects as dictionaries for caches and
events.
extract_message_dict
stringify_message_dict
message_to_dict
message_to_dict_json
MessageDict.to_dict_uncached
MessageDict.to_dict_uncached_helper
MessageDict.build_dict_from_raw_db_row
MessageDict.build_message_dict
This fix also removes a circular dependency related
to get_avatar_url.
Also, there was kind of a latent bug in Message.need_to_render_content
where it was depending on other calls to Message to import bugdown
and set it globally in the namespace. We really need to just
eliminate the function, since it's so small and used by code that
may be doing very sketchy things, but for now I just fix it. (The
bug would possibly be exposed by moving build_message_dict out to the
library.)
This was the original way to send messages via the Zulip API in the
very early days of Zulip, but was replaced by the REST API back in
2013.
Fixes: #730.
This makes us more consistent, since we have other wrappers
like client_patch, client_put, and client_delete.
Wrapping also will facilitate instrumentation of our posting code.
This is controlled through the admin tab and a new field in the Realms table.
Notes:
* The admin tab setting takes a value in minutes, whereas the backend stores it
in seconds.
* This setting is unused when allow_message_editing is false.
* There is some generosity in how the limit is enforced. For instance, if the
user sees the hovering edit button, we ensure they have at least 5 seconds to
click it, and if the user gets to the message edit form, we ensure they have
at least 10 seconds to make the edit, by relaxing the limit.
* This commit also includes a countdown timer in the message edit form.
Resolves#903.
Tim Abbott
Raghav Jajodia
Rishi Gupta
PhilSk
Umair Khan
Rafid Aslam
Steve Howell
Juanvulcano
Kracekumar R
Harshit Bansal
sidhant bhavnani
bulat22101
nikolay
Sidhant Bhavnani
Alex Huang
AZtheAsian
Bickio
reyha
sinwar
paxapy
Rishi Gupta
Supriya
sunnypalace
Tim Abbott
Tomasz Kolek