This fixes some harmless type errors from the
following commit:
6ec5a1f306
The IntDict code automatically converts strings to
integers, so this was not a user-facing problem, but
we want to have our callers do the conversions
explicitly.
Previously, links to deleted streams would be incorrectly rendered as
stream's name).
Fixes an issue that was reported where after deleting the "general"
stream, the welcome turtle messages might appear as links to
This required lots of manual testing:
- search/navigate user presence
- send PM and mention user
- pay attention to compose fade
- send stream msg and mention user
- open Private Messages in top-left and click
- test unread counts
- invite user who already has account
- search for users in search bar
- check user settings
- User Groups
- Users
- Deactivated Users
- Bots
- create a bot
- mention user groups
- send group PM then click on lower right
- view/edit/create streams
If there are still pieces of code that don't convert
ids to ints, the code should still work but report
blueslip errors.
I try to mostly convert user_ids to ints in the callers,
since often the callers are dealing with small amounts
of data, like user ids from huddles.
Updates the message editing process to do a local 'echo'.
On slow connections, now there is visual confirmation of the edit,
similar to when sending messages. The contains_backend_only_syntax
logic and check are the same as there.
We showing "(SAVING)" until the edit is completed, and on successful
edit, the word "(EDITED)" appears. There's likely useful future work
to do on making the animation experience nicer.
Substantially rewritten by tabbott to better handle corner cases and
communicate more clearly about what's happening.
Fixes: #3530.
This commit was automatically generated by `tools/lint --only=eslint
--fix`, after an `.eslintrc.json` change.
A half dozen files were removed from the changes by tabbott pending
further work to ensure we avoid breaking valuable PRs with merge
conflicts.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Because of the separate declarations, ESLint would convert them to
`let` and then trigger the `prefer-const` error.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
With webpack, variables declared in each file are already file-local
(Global variables need to be explicitly exported), so these IIFEs are
no longer needed.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
As it turns out, our rerender_the_whole_thing function (used whenever
we were adding messages and discovered that the resulting message list
would be out-of-order) was just broken and scrolled the browser to a
random location.
This caused two user-facing bugs:
* On very fast networks, if two users sent messages at very close to
the same time, we could end up with out-of-order message deliveries,
triggering this code path, which was intended to silently correct
the situation, but failed.
* In some narrows to streams with muted topics in the history but some
recent traffic, the user's browser-cached history might have some
gaps that mean the server fetch we do after narrowing discovers the
history is out-of-order, again triggering the
rerender_the_whole_thing code path.
The fix is to just remove that function, adding a new option to the
well-tested rerender_preserving_scrolltop (which has explicit logic to
preserve the scroll position) instead.
Fixes#12067. Likely also fixes#12498.
This adds three bools to message_container object which calculate bools
where the "(EDITED)" label should appear:
* `edited_in_left_col` -- when label appears in left column.
* `edited_alongside_sender` -- when label appears alongside sender info.
* `edited_status_msg` -- when label appears for a "/me" message.
We use the new bools and remove the complicated if else statements
from the templates for the "(EDITED)" label.
This also allows us to add a unit test to verify the logic.
Private messages too have non-`undefined` stream name. It is usually
an empty string. The check has been changed to not check specifically
for stream name to be undefined.
This just puts the style more clearly that one shouldn't be using
`this` to refer to the outer MessageListview object, because that
breaks unexpectedly when inside a loop.
Previously, if you were in the process of editing the last message in
a narrow and a new message came in, we'd rerender that second-to-last
message, causing your editing widget to lose focus (and thus the next
few keys you typed to be interpreted as keyboard shortcuts, which
had a good chance of resulting in your navigating somewhere random).
This rerendering was essentially unnecessary; the only change to state
going into the rendering process was the next_is_same_sender CSS class
being toggled on the messagebox in the message. So, at most, we
should have been just toggling that CSS class (and this commit makes
us do precisely that).
It seems like we could further improve this code by just removing the
next_is_same_sender CSS class entirely and removing this block, but
I'm leaving that for follow-up work.
Fixes#11656.
The bug here was that when we rerendered messages following local echo
through the echo.process_from_server code path, the eventual call to
_rerender_header() made the implicit assumption that all messages in a
message group had the same date. As a result, it created a totally
new/fake message group and called the rendering logic on that group
without calling the functions for setting up recipient row dates,
which would always result in no recipient bar date being added. This
bug was latent/invisible before, because when introduced, the locally
echoed messages were always being added to a recipient group from
today, where the recipient bar's date area was by default empty anyway.
This latent bug was revealed when we modified the structure of the app
to do date dividers between individual messages within a message
group, rather than strictly between message groups.
For consistency, we should keep all the code that works with
@mentions in markdown.js. In this case, message_list_view was
rewriting the contents of the mentions in cases where users'
names had been changed since we rendered their mention.
This change should help people discover to distinguish
silent mentions in text as a part of Zulip syntax while
differentiating them from regular mentions.
This adds date dividers within a single message group when the only
reason we had previously been splitting apart two message groups is a
change of date. The overall effect is a cleaner message list user
experience.
The downside of this change would be that the recipient bars no longer
will always show a new date for date changes; to fix that, we rewrite
how the floating recipient bars both set the date field on the
floating recipient bar itself, as well as ensure that non-floating
recipient bars don't show duplicate dates.
In a future design update where we modify how message recipient bars
look, we may very well be able to simplify this logic by removing some
of the dynamic nature of the recipient bar calculations. But this is
a good implementation of what remains.
Tweaked significantly by tabbott from Steve Howell's original, both to
extract these changes from a larger PR as well as to modify the
first_visible_message logic to handle some tricky corner cases.
Fixes#10171.
We need to move the update_group_date_divider call to run when a
message group is created. This achieves a few things:
* Fixes calling this multiple times useless for long message groups.
* It will soon no longer be correct to assume that every message
within a group has the same date, and in that case, we want to process
the date of the first message in the group, not of the last.
We only generate message_containers in one place, and that code path
already calls update_timestr. And update_timestr's effect only
depends on the message. Thus, this code was useless.
Since the main autoscroll feature was implemeneted, the
maybe_advance_to_recently_sent_message logic had an unfortunate
structure, where the code for this potentially large scroll was
running AFTER the autoscroll decision was made, but before an actual
scroll could have occurred.
This resulted in code that was very difficult to reason about, as
there were 2 potential sources of scrolling when you send a new
message, with little connection between their implementations either
in location or implementation.
Moving this into the main autoscrolling code path clarifies the code,
with the added benefit of fixing a bug where we would report to the
user that they needed to scroll down when in fact we were just about
to scroll the bottom of the feed into view (via
maybe_advance_to_recently_sent_message).
With this change, we never display the "you need to scroll manually"
message in the cast that we just scrolled you there via selecting a
message.
When you just sent a large message, our logic for "you need to scroll"
notifications did not correctly take into account the height of the
compose box. This was easily reproduced when sending very long
messages. The correct solution requires a bit of math to compute what
the visible area will look like after the compose box is closed.
This should be the final fix to #11138.
We recently added a feature to warn users that they
may need to scroll down to view messages that they
just sent, but it was broken due to various complexities
in the rendering code path.
Now we compute it a bit more rigorously.
It requires us to pass some info about rendering up
and down the stack, which is why it's kind of a long
commit, but the bulk of the logic is in these JS files:
* message_list_view.js
* notifications.js
I choose to pass structs around instead of booleans,
because I anticipate we may eventually add more metadata
about rendering to it, plus bools are just kinda brittle.
(The exceptions are that `_maybe_autoscroll`, which
is at the bottom of the stack, just passes back a simple
boolean, and `notify_local_mixes`, also at the bottom
of the stack, just accepts a simple boolean.)
This errs on the side of warning the user, even if the
new message is partially visible.
Fixes#11138
In a recent commit we allowed for `scroll_amount`
to be zero (as an indirect consequence of letting
`scroll_limit` be zero without early exiting).
See 0f75be3e8e
We want to short circuit the call to
`system_initiated_animate_scroll`, partly to save
unnecessary computation, but in particular to avoid
invoking the suppress-pointer-update logic.
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Jack Tiggleman
Rohitt Vashishtha
Thomas Ip
Vaibhav