Member of the org can able see list of invitations sent by him/her.
given permission for the member to revoke and resend the invitations
sent by him/her and added tests for test member can revoke and resend
the invitations only sent by him/her.
Fixes#14007.
Prior to this change, there were reports of 500s in
production due to `export.extra_data` being a
Nonetype. This was reproducible using the s3
backend in development when a row was created in
the `RealmAuditLog` table, but the export failed in
the `DeferredWorker`. This left an entry lying
about that was never updated with an `extra_data`
field.
To fix this, we catch any exceptions in the
`DeferredWorker`, and then update `extra_data` to
encode the failure. We also fix the fact that we
never updated the export UI table with pending exports.
These changes also negated the use for the somewhat
hacky `clear_success_banner` logic.
The logic in do_set_realm_property would previously "change" the email
addrssees of every user in the realm, even if they hadn't actually
changed.
We fix this by skipping the logic when it's unnecessary.
bulk_update is used to update the email of user_profile objects in
database when email_address_visibility is changed.
This helps resolve the problem of timeout errors in realms with large
number of users due to large number of database queries run in a
loop.
Since bulk_update doesn't flush caches, we need our own bit of code to
do that.
Fixes a part of #14600.
We add URLs to the `links_for_embed set`, only when
the `url_embed_preview_enabled` flag is turned on.
So, it is sufficient to check if `links_for_embed`
is not empty.
Previously, the message and event APIs represented the user differently
for the same reaction data. To make this more consistent, I added a
user_id field to the reaction dict for both messages and events. I
updated the front end to use the user_id field rather than the user
dict. Lastly, I updated front end and back end tests that used user
info.
I primarily tested this by running my local Zulip build and
adding/removing reactions from messages.
Fixes#12049.
Generated by autopep8, with the setup.cfg configuration from #14532.
I’m not sure why pycodestyle didn’t already flag these.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Refactored code in actions.py and streams.py to move stream related
functions into streams.py and remove the dependency on actions.py.
validate_sender_can_write_to_stream function in actions.py was renamed
to access_stream_for_send_message in streams.py.
Generated by `pyupgrade --py3-plus --keep-percent-format` on all our
Python code except `zthumbor` and `zulip-ec2-configure-interfaces`,
followed by manual indentation fixes.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
This commit reuses the existing infrastructure for moving a topic
within a stream to add support for moving topics from one stream to
another.
Split from the original full-feature commit so that we can merge just
the backend, which is finished, at this time.
This is a large part of #6427.
The feature is incomplete, in that we don't have real-time update of
the frontend to handle the event, documentation, etc., but this commit
is a good mergable checkpoint that we can do further work on top of.
We also still ideally would have a test_events test for the backend,
but I'm willing to leave that for follow-up work.
This appears to have switched to tabbott as the author during commit
squashing sometime ago, but this commit is certainly:
Co-Authored-By: Wbert Adrián Castro Vera <wbertc@gmail.com>
The distinction between ValueError and TypeError
is not useful in these functions:
- extract_stream_indicator
- extract_private_recipients (or its callees)
These are always invoked in views to validate
user input.
When we use REQ to wrap the validators, any
Exception gets turned into a JsonableError, so
the distinction is not important.
And if we don't use REQ to wrap the validators,
the errors aren't caught.
Now we just let these functions directly produce
the desired end result for both codepaths.
Also, we now flag the error strings for translation.
This improves the error handling for invalid values of the
propagate_mode parameter to our message editing endpoints.
Previously, invalid values would just work like change_one rather than
doing nothing.
We don't need `do_create_user` to send a partial
event here for bots. The only caller to `do_create_user`
that actually creates bots (apart from some tests that
just need data setup) is `add_bot_backend`, which
sends the more complete event including bot "extras"
like service info.
The modified event tests show the simplification
here (2 events instead of 3).
Also, the bot tests now use tuple unpacking, which
will force a ValueError if we duplicate events
again.
Using an Exists subquery to avoid scanning the entire Subscription
table seems to speed things up greatly.
Set up with:
./manage.py populate_db --extra_users 2000 --extra-streams 1000
Tested on my computer, the original function was taking ~1.2seconds,
the optimized version only ~0.05-0.06.
Likely fixes#13874; we can re-open if after production testing we
feel more work is warranted.
This extends our email address visibility settings to deny access to
user email addresses even to organization administrators.
At the moment, they can of course change the setting (which leaves an
audit trail), but in the future only organization owners will be able
to change that setting.
While we're at this, we rewrite the settings_data.js test to cover all
the cases in a more consistent way.
Fixes#14111.
We were using `code` to pass around messages.
The `code` field is designed to be a code, not
a human-readable message.
It's possible that we don't actually need two
flavors of messages for these type of validations,
but I didn't want to change that yet.
We **definitely** don't need to put two types of
message in the exception, so I fix that. Instead,
I just have the caller ask what level of detail
it needs.
I added a non-verbose message for the case of
system bots.
I removed the non-translated version of the message
for deactivated accounts, which didn't have test
coverage and is slightly more prone to leaking
email info that we don't want to leak.
In the prep commits leading up to this, we split
out two new helpers:
validate_email_is_valid
get_errors_for_new_emails
Now when we validate invites we use two separate
loops to filter our emails.
Note that the two extracted functions map to two
of the data structures that used to be handled
in a single loop, and now we break them out:
errors = validate_email_is_valid
skipped = get_errors_for_new_emails
The first loop checks that emails are even valid
to begin with.
The second loop finds out whether emails are already
in use.
The second loop takes advantage of this helper:
get_errors_for_new_emails
The second helper can query all potential new emails
with a single round trip to the database.
This reduces our query count.
We are trying to kill off `validate_email`, so
we no longer call it from these tests.
These tests are already kind of low-level in
nature, so testing the more specific helpers
here should be fine.
Note that we also make the third parameter
to `validate_email` non-optional in this commit,
to preserve 100% coverage. This is really just
refactoring noise--we will soon eliminate the
entire function, but I didn't want to do everything
in a huge commit.
This is a prep commit that will allow us
to more efficiently validate a bunch of
emails in the invite UI.
This commit does not yet change any
behavior or performance.
A secondary goal of this commit is to
prepare us to eliminate some hackiness
related to how we construct
`ValidationError` exceptions.
It preserves some quirks of the prior
implementation:
- the strings we decided to translate
here appear haphazard (and often
get ignored anyway)
- we use `msg` in most codepaths,
but use `code` for invites
Right now we never actually call this with
more than one email, but that will change
soon.
Note that part of the rationale for the inner
method here is to avoid a test coverage bug
with `continue` in loops.
This has two goals:
- sets up a future commit to bulk-validate
emails
- the extracted function is more simple,
since it just has errors, and no codes
or deactivated flags
This commit leaves us in a somewhat funny
intermediate state where we have
`action.validate_email` being a glorified
two-line function with strange parameters,
but subsequent commits will clean this up:
- we will eliminate validate_email
- we will move most of the guts of its
other callee to lib/email_validation.py
To be clear, the code is correct here, just
kinda in an ugly, temporarily-disorganized
intermediate state.
We now use the `get_realm_email_validator()`
helper to build an email validator outside
the loop of emails in our invite list.
This allows us to perform RealmDomain queries
only once per request, instead of once per
email.
Now called:
validate_email_not_already_in_realm
We have a separate validation function that
makes sure that the email fits into a realm's
domain scheme, and we want to avoid naming
confusion here.
Without the fix here, you will get an exception
similar to below if you try to invite one of the
cross realm bots. (The actual exception is
a bit different due to some rebasing on my branch.)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/request.py", line 368, in _wrapped_view_func
return view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/views/invite.py", line 49, in invite_users_backend
do_invite_users(user_profile, invitee_emails, streams, invite_as)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/actions.py", line 5153, in do_invite_users
email_error, email_skipped, deactivated = validate_email(user_profile, email)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/actions.py", line 5069, in validate_email
return None, (error.code), (error.params['deactivated'])
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
Obviously, you shouldn't try to invite a cross
realm bot to your realm, but we want a reasonable
error message.
RESOLUTION:
Populate the `code` parameter for `ValidationError`.
BACKGROUND:
Most callers to `validate_email_for_realm` simply catch
the `ValidationError` and then report a more generic error.
That's also what `do_invite_users` does, but it has the
somewhat convoluted codepath through `validate_email`
that triggers this code:
try:
validate_email_for_realm(user_profile.realm, email)
except ValidationError as error:
return None, (error.code), (error.params['deactivated'])
The way that we're using the `code` parameter for
`ValidationError` feels hacky to me. The intention
behind `code` is to provide a descriptive error to
calling code, and it's not intended for humans, and
it feels strange that we actually translate this in
other places. Here are the Django docs:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/forms/validation/
And then here's an example of us actually translating
a code (not part of this commit, just providing context):
raise ValidationError(_('%s already has an account') %
(email,), code = _("Already has an account."),
params={'deactivated': False})
Those codes eventually get put into InvitationError, which
inherits from JsonableError, and we do actually display
these errors in the webapp:
if skipped and len(skipped) == len(invitee_emails):
# All e-mails were skipped, so we didn't actually invite anyone.
raise InvitationError(_("We weren't able to invite anyone."),
skipped, sent_invitations=False)
I will try to untangle this somewhat in upcoming commits.
/delete_topic endpoint could be used to request the deletion of a topic,
that would cause do_delete_messages to be called with an empty set in
these cases:
1. Requesting deletion of an empty stream.
2. Requesting deletion of a topic in a private stream with history not
public to subscribers, if the requesting admin doesn't have access to
any of the messages in that topic.
This function slims down the data that we get
from the database in order to create the
streams part of our client payload.
We also fix a typo.
We also clearly distinguish between queries
and lists here.
This new method prevents us from getting fat
objects from the database.
Instead, now we just get ids from the database
to build our subqueries.
Note that we could also technically eliminate
the `set(...)` wrappers in this code to have
Django make a subquery and save a round trip.
I am postponing that for another commit (since
it's still somewhat coupled to some other
complexity in `do_get_streams` that I am trying
to cut through, plus it's not the main point
of this commit.)
BEFORE:
# old, still in use for other codepaths
def get_stream_subscriptions_for_user(user_profile: UserProfile) -> QuerySet:
# TODO: Change return type to QuerySet[Subscription]
return Subscription.objects.filter(
user_profile=user_profile,
recipient__type=Recipient.STREAM,
)
user_subs = get_stream_subscriptions_for_user(user_profile).filter(
active=True,
).select_related('recipient')
recipient_check = Q(id__in=[sub.recipient.type_id for sub in user_subs])
AFTER:
# newly added
def get_subscribed_stream_ids_for_user(user_profile: UserProfile) -> QuerySet:
return Subscription.objects.filter(
user_profile_id=user_profile,
recipient__type=Recipient.STREAM,
active=True,
).values_list('recipient__type_id', flat=True)
subscribed_stream_ids = get_subscribed_stream_ids_for_user(user_profile)
recipient_check = Q(id__in=set(subscribed_stream_ids))
For historical reasons we were creating Recipient
objects at some point in the typing-notifications
codepath. Now we just work with UserProfiles.
This removes some queries, as indicated by
the change to `len(queries)` in a couple of the
tests.
The one subtle thing that changes here is huddles.
If user 10 sends a typing notification that they
are talking to users 20 and 30, there might not
actually be a huddle for users 10/20/30, but
we were actually creating huddles on the fly!
There is no need to create huddles just for
typing notifications, since we don't even
share huddle ids with our clients. The clients
just infer the huddles.
Some of the code that gets killed off here as
somewhat "collateral damage" is some
defensive code related to formerly supporting streams
in typing indicators. The support for streams
was killed off almost as soon as we released
the feature, and the codepath is pretty clearly
user-centric at this point.
I actually like this pattern:
def check_send_typing_notification(...):
typing_notification = check_typing_notification(...)
do_send_typing_notification(...)
It can help divide responsibilities nicely and make it easy
to write detailed unit tests against each of the two helpers.
Unfortunately, the good things didn't really happen here, and
instead we got the worst aspects of the pattern:
- The responsibilities for validation leaked into
the second function.
- Both functions were doing sane things individually
that became not-so-sane in the big picture (namely,
we ended up making Recipient objects for no reason,
but if you read each of the helpers, it was just one
step that seemed reasonable).
- Passing around dictionaries for results can be annoying.
Also, the pattern made a lot more sense when the validation
for typing was a lot more complicated. My prior commit makes
it so that we only ever deal with a list of user_ids.
Anyway, now I'm inlining it. :)
Subsequent commits will clean up the more substantive issue
here, which is that we are building Recipients for no reason.
This field wasn't accessed by any clients and was a less robust
version of the user_id field. Any client hoping to be interested in
who did message edits should be able to handle working with user IDs
rather than email addresses.
Anders Kaseorg
sahil839
jagansivam28
Wyatt Hoodes
Hashir Sarwar
Vishnu KS
rebtung
Anders Kaseorg
Udit107710
Abhishek-Balaji
Tim Abbott
Steve Howell
Stefan Weil
Mateusz Mandera