Various backend tests use the `PATCH /messages/{msg_id}` endpoint.
For that endpoint, the message ID is encoded in the URL path and
ignored if provided as a parameter in the the query.
Verified that the tests were providing the same message ID to both
the path and then removed the ignored parameter in the query.
This fixes a bug where email notifications were sent for wildcard
mentions even if the `enable_offline_email_notifications` setting was
turned off.
This was because the `notification_data` class incorrectly considered
`wildcard_mentions_notify` as an indeoendent setting, instead of a wrapper
around `enable_offline_email_notifications` and `enable_offline_push_notifications`.
Also add a test for this case.
Previously, we checked for the `enable_offline_email_notifications` and
`enable_offline_push_notifications` settings (which determine whether the
user will receive notifications for PMs and mentions) just before sending
notifications. This has a few problem:
1. We do not have access to all the user settings in the notification
handlers (`handle_missedmessage_emails` and `handle_push_notifications`),
and therefore, we cannot correctly determine whether the notification should
be sent. Checks like the following which existed previously, will, for
example, incorrectly not send notifications even when stream email
notifications are enabled-
```
if not receives_offline_email_notifications(user_profile):
return
```
With this commit, we simply do not enqueue notifications if the "offline"
settings are disabled, which fixes that bug.
Additionally, this also fixes a bug with the "online push notifications"
feature, which was, if someone were to:
* turn off notifications for PMs and mentions (`enable_offline_push_notifications`)
* turn on stream push notifications (`enable_stream_push_notifications`)
* turn on "online push" (`enable_online_push_notifications`)
then, they would still receive notifications for PMs when online.
This isn't how the "online push enabled" feature is supposed to work;
it should only act as a wrapper around the other notification settings.
The buggy code was this in `handle_push_notifications`:
```
if not (
receives_offline_push_notifications(user_profile)
or receives_online_push_notifications(user_profile)
):
return
// send notifications
```
This commit removes that code, and extends our `notification_data.py` logic
to cover this case, along with tests.
2. The name for these settings is slightly misleading. They essentially
talk about "what to send notifications for" (PMs and mentions), and not
"when to send notifications" (offline). This commit improves this condition
by restricting the use of this term only to the database field, and using
clearer names everywhere else. This distinction will be important to have
non-confusing code when we implement multiple options for notifications
in the future as dropdown (never/when offline/when offline or online, etc).
3. We should ideally re-check all notification settings just before the
notifications are sent. This is especially important for email notifications,
which may be sent after a long time after the message was sent. We will
in the future add code to thoroughly re-check settings before sending
notifications in a clean manner, but temporarily not re-checking isn't
a terrible scenario either.
* `stream_name`: This field is actually redundant. The email/push
notifications handlers don't use that field from the dict, and they
anyways query for the message, so we're safe in deleting this field,
even if in the future we end up needing the stream name.
* `timestamp`: This is totally unused by the email/push notification
handlers, and aren't sent to push clients either.
* `type` is used only for the push notifications handler, since only
push notifications can be revoked, so we move them to only run there.
* Modify `maybe_enqueue_notifications` to take in an instance of the
dataclass introduced in 951b49c048.
* The `check_notify` tests tested the "when to notify" logic in a way
which involved `maybe_enqueue_notifications`. To simplify things, we've
earlier extracted this logic in 8182632d7e.
So, we just kill off the `check_notify` test, and keep only those parts
which verify the queueing and return value behavior of that funtion.
* We retain the the missedmessage_hook and message
message_edit_notifications since they are more integration-style.
* There's a slightly subtle change with the missedmessage_hook tests.
Before this commit, we short-circuited the hook if the sender was muted
(5a642cea11).
With this commit, we delegate the check to our dataclass methods.
So, `maybe_enqueue_notifications` will be called even if the sender was
muted, and the test needs to be updated.
* In our test helper `get_maybe_enqueue_notifications_parameters` which
generates default values for testing `maybe_enqueue_notifications` calls,
we keep `message_id`, `sender_id`, and `user_id` as required arguments,
so that the tests are super-clear and avoid accidental false positives.
* Because `do_update_embedded_data` also sends `update_message` events,
we deal with that case with some hacky code for now. See the comment
there.
This mostly completes the extraction of the "when to notify" logic into
our new `notification_data` module.
Changed the name of the test-user cordelia from `Cordelia Lear` to
`Cordelia, Lear's daughter`.
This change will enable us to test users with escape characters in
their names.
I also updated the Node, Puppeteer, Backend tests and Fixtures to
support this change.
We include tests for the new implementation to avoid churning the
codebase too much so this can be easily reverted when we are able to
re-enable the feature.
We send a remove mobile push notification to the users who were
no longer mentioned after the content of the message was edited.
This also corrects the notification count for the mobile apps
where a user was prior mentioned in a muted stream / topic and the
message was edited and the user is no longer mentioned now.
Hence, fixing the case where user has read all his unreads
but the notification badge on the app is still positive.
Fixes#15428.
Fixes#2665.
Regenerated by tabbott with `lint --fix` after a rebase and change in
parameters.
Note from tabbott: In a few cases, this converts technical debt in the
form of unsorted imports into different technical debt in the form of
our largest files having very long, ugly import sequences at the
start. I expect this change will increase pressure for us to split
those files, which isn't a bad thing.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Automatically generated by the following script, based on the output
of lint with flake8-comma:
import re
import sys
last_filename = None
last_row = None
lines = []
for msg in sys.stdin:
m = re.match(
r"\x1b\[35mflake8 \|\x1b\[0m \x1b\[1;31m(.+):(\d+):(\d+): (\w+)", msg
)
if m:
filename, row_str, col_str, err = m.groups()
row, col = int(row_str), int(col_str)
if filename == last_filename:
assert last_row != row
else:
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
with open(filename) as f:
lines = f.readlines()
last_filename = filename
last_row = row
line = lines[row - 1]
if err in ["C812", "C815"]:
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 1] + "," + line[col - 1 :]
elif err in ["C819"]:
assert line[col - 2] == ","
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 2] + line[col - 1 :].lstrip(" ")
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
mock is just a backport of the standard library’s unittest.mock now.
The SAMLAuthBackendTest change is needed because
MagicMock.call_args.args wasn’t introduced until Python
3.8 (https://bugs.python.org/issue21269).
The PROVISION_VERSION bump is skipped because mock is still an
indirect dev requirement via moto.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
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>
We now have this API...
If you really just need to log in
and not do anything with the actual
user:
self.login('hamlet')
If you're gonna use the user in the
rest of the test:
hamlet = self.example_user('hamlet')
self.login_user(hamlet)
If you are specifically testing
email/password logins (used only in 4 places):
self.login_by_email(email, password)
And for failures uses this (used twice):
self.assert_login_failure(email)
This commit mostly makes our tests less
noisy, since emails are no longer an important
detail of sending messages (they're not even
really used in the API).
It also sets us up to have more scrutiny
on delivery_email/email in the future
for things that actually matter. (This is
a prep commit for something along those
lines, kind of hard to explain the full
plan.)
This index is intended to optimize the performance of the very
frequently run query of "what is the presence status of all users in a
realm?".
Main changes:
- add realm_id to UserPresence
- add index for realm_id
- backfill realm_id for old rows
- change all writes to UserPresence to include
realm_id
The index is of this form:
"zerver_userpresence_realm_id_5c4ef5a9" btree (realm_id)
We will create an index on (realm_id, timestamp) in a
future commit, but I think it's a bit faster if you do
the backfill before the index.
There's also a minor tweak to the populate_db script.
For new user onboarding, it's important for it to be easy to verify
that Zulip's mobile push notifications work without jumping through
hoops or potentially making mistakes. For that reason, it makes sense
to toggle the notification defaults for new users to the more
aggressive mode (ignoring whether the user is currently actively
online); they can set the more subtle mode if they find that the
notifications are annoying.
This change makes it possible for users to control the notification
settings for wildcard mentions as a separate control from PMs and
direct @-mentions.
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.
This modifies the logic for formatting outgoing missed-message emails
to support the upcoming stream email notifications feature (providing
a new format for the subject, etc.).
We don't have our linter checking test files due to ultra-long strings
that are often present in test output that we verify. But it's worth
at least cleaning out all the ultra-long def lines.
Do you call get_recipient(Recipient.STREAM, stream_id) or
get_recipient(stream_id, Recipient.STREAM)? I could never
remember, and it was not very type safe, since both parameters
are integers.
This removes the utterly unnecessary `triggers` dict (which always was
a dict with exactly one value True) in favor of a single field,
'trigger'.
Inspired by Kunal Gupta's work in #6659.
We now do push notifications and missed message emails
for offline users who are subscribed to the stream for
a message that has been edited, but we short circuit
the offline-notification logic for any user who presumably
would have already received a notification on the original
message.
This effectively boils down to sending notifications to newly
mentioned users. The motivating use case here is that you
forget to mention somebody in a message, and then you edit
the message to mention the person. If they are offline, they
will now get pushed notifications and missed message emails,
with some minor caveats.
We try to mostly use the same techniques here as the
send-message code path, and we share common code with the
send-message path once we get to the Tornado layer and call
maybe_enqueue_notifications.
The major places where we differ are in a function called
maybe_enqueue_notifications_for_message_update, and the top
of that function short circuits a bunch of cases where we
can mostly assume that the original message had an offline
notification.
We can expect a couple changes in the future:
* Requirements may change here, and it might make sense
to send offline notifications on the update side even
in circumstances where the original message had a
notification.
* We may track more notifications in a DB model, which
may simplify our short-circuit logic.
In the view/action layer, we already had two separate codepaths
for send-message and update-message, but this mostly echoes
what the send-message path does in terms of collecting data
about recipients.
Alex Vandiver
Lauryn Menard
Anders Kaseorg
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Mateusz Mandera
Arun Sankar
Tim Abbott
Aman Agrawal
Anders Kaseorg
Ryan Rehman
Steve Howell
Mateusz Mandera
Tim Abbott
Anders Kaseorg
Sarah
Aditya Bansal
rht