We had this API:
people.add_in_realm = full-fledged user
people.add = not necessarily in realm
Now the API is this:
people.add = full-fledged user
people._add_user = internal API for cross-realm bots
and deactivated users
I think in most of our tests the distinction between
people.add() and people.add_in_realm() was just an
accident of history and didn't reflect any real intention.
And if I had to guess the intention in 99% of the cases,
folks probably thought they were just creating ordinary,
active users in the current realm.
In places where the distinction was obviously important
(because a test failed), I deactivated the user via
`people.deactivate`.
For the 'basics' test in the people test suite, I clean
up the test setup for Isaac. Before this commit I was
adding him first as a non-realm user then as a full-fledged
user, but this was contrived and confusing, and we
didn't really need it for test coverage purposes.
This commit was originally automatically generated using `tools/lint
--only=eslint --fix`. It was then modified by tabbott to contain only
changes to a set of files that are unlikely to result in significant
merge conflicts with any open pull request, excluding about 20 files.
His plan is to merge the remaining changes with more precise care,
potentially involving merging parts of conflicting pull requests
before running the `eslint --fix` operation.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Fixes#9842.
Enables avatar images in pills wherever user_pill.js is used.
(e.g composebox, user group settings)
Changes to search_pill.js are not made as search pills haven't been
added yet completely and search_pill.js just contains the preparatory
code right now.
No change to compose_pm_pill.js is not required as it uses
`user_pill.create_item_from_text` in its `create` function.
This run_test helper sets up a convention that allows
us to give really short tracebacks for errors, and
eventually we can have more control over running
individual tests. (The latter goal has some
complications, since we often intentionally leak
setup in tests.)