Given that we allow adding emoji reactions by only using the
emoji_name, we should offer the same possibility for removing
reactions to make the experience for API clients not require looking
up emoji codes.
Since this is an additional optional parameter, this also preserves
backward compatibility.
Complete, correct implementations of Zulip's emoji reactions API need
to send both emoji_code and emoji_name in order to add a reaction;
this is important for corner cases around clicking on a reaction in a
message that was first reacted to a year ago, when the emoji
name->code mappings have changed for the given code point in the
intervening time.
However, for folks building tools using the Zulip API, that corner
case is not particularly common; as a result, it makes sense to offer
an interface that allows adding a reaction by only specifying the
emoji name.
This is why the only field that needs to be required is emoji_name,
which can now be mapped to a single emoji. Both fields will be
necessary when "voting" an old reaction, but since we stil allow
specifying the two of them, these changes offer retrocompatibility.
This commit migrates realm emoji to be addressed by their `id` rather
than their name. This fixes a long standing issue which was causing
an error on uploading an emoji with same name as a deactivated realm
emoji.
Fixes: #6977.
Till now, we had been storing realm emoji's name in emoji code field
in reactions' model. This commit migrates it to store realm emoji's id.
It is a part of effort to migrate realm emojis to be referenced by their
id and not by name.
Inorder to provide more explicit error messages I have merged the
`emoji_code_is_valid()` and `emoji_name_is_valid()` functions into
`check_emoji_code_consistency()` and `check_emoji_name_consistency()`
respectively.
This endpoint will allow us to add/delete emoji reactions whose emoji
got renamed during various emoji infra changes. This was also a
required change for realm emoji migration.
This commit was tweaked significantly by tabbott for greater clarity
(with no changes to the actual logic).
On receiving a request for deleting a reaction, just check if such
a reaction exists or not. If it exists then just delete the reaction
otherwise send an error message that such a reaction doesn't exist.
It doesn't make sense to check whether an emoji name is valid or not.
This is the first part of a larger migration to convert Zulip's
reactions storage to something based on the codepoint, not the emoji
name that the user typed in, so that we don't need to worry about
changes in the names we're using breaking the emoji storage.
A deactivated realm emoji should neither be accepted further as a
reaction nor its further occurences in a message be rendered as an
emoji. However, all the old occurences should continue to render
normally.
- Add file_name field to `RealmEmoji` model and migration.
- Add emoji upload supporting to Upload backends.
- Add uploaded file processing to emoji views.
- Use emoji source url as based for display url.
- Change emoji form for image uploading.
- Fix back-end tests.
- Fix front-end tests.
- Add tests for emoji uploading.
Fixes#1134
We use the same strategy Zulip already uses for starred messages,
namely, creating a new UserMessage row with the "historical" flag set
(which basically means Zulip can ignore this row for most purposes
that use UserMessage rows). The historical flag is ignored, however,
in determining which users' browsers to notify about new reactions,
and thus the user will get to see the reaction appear when they click
a message (and any reactions other users later add, as well!).
There's still something of a race here, in that if some users react to
a message while the user is looking at the unsubscribed stream but
before the user reacts to that message, those reactions will not be
displayed to that user (so counts will be a bit lower, or something).
This race feels small enough to ignore for now.
Fixes#3345.
Whether the emoji is valid is already being checked elsewhere, and
this duplicate regular expression makes it harder to understand what's
going on with Zulip's validation of emoji.
Adding a reaction is now a PUT request to
/messages/<message_id>/emoji_reactions/<emoji_name>
Similarly, removing a reaction is now a DELETE request to
/messages/<message_id>/emoji_reactions/<emoji_name>
This commit changes the url and updates the views and tests.
This commit also adds a test for invalid emoji when removing reaction.
This commit adds support for removing reactions via DELETE requests to
the /reactions endpoint with parameters emoji_name and message_id.
The reaction is deleted from the database and a reaction event is sent
out with 'op' set to 'remove'.
Tests are added to check:
1. Removing a reaction that does not exist fails
2. When removing a reaction, the event payload and users are correct
This commit adds the following:
1. A reaction model that consists of a user, a message and an emoji that
are unique together (a user cannot react to a particular message more
than once with the same emoji)
2. A reaction event that looks like:
{
'type': 'reaction',
'op': 'add',
'message_id': 3,
'emoji_name': 'doge',
'user': {
'user_id': 1,
'email': 'hamlet@zulip.com',
'full_name': 'King Hamlet'
}
}
3. A new API endpoint, /reactions, that accepts POST requests to add a
reaction to a message
4. A migration to add the new model to the database
5. Tests that check that
(a) Invalid requests cannot be made
(b) The reaction event body contains all the info
(c) The reaction event is sent to the appropriate users
(d) Reacting more than once fails
It is still missing important features like removing emoji and
fetching them alongside messages.
Anders Kaseorg
Yago González
Aditya Bansal
Harshit Bansal
Tim Abbott
Alena Volkova
rht
Steve Howell
Umair Khan
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
Vishnu Ks
Rick Chern
Steve Howell
K.Kanakhin
Arpith Siromoney
Rafid Aslam