This commit renames parse_message_content_edit_or_delete_limit
to parse_message_time_limit_setting and also renames
MESSAGE_CONTENT_EDIT_OR_DELETE_LIMIT_SPECIAL_VALUES_MAP to
MESSAGE_TIME_LIMIT_SETTING_SPECIAL_VALUES_MAP.
We do this change since this function and object will also be
used for message move limit and it makes sense to have a more
generic name.
This commit extracts a function to parse message time limit type settings
and to set it if the new setting value is None.
This function is currently used for message_content_edit_limit_seconds and
message_content_delete_limit_seconds settings and will be used for
message_move_limit_seconds setting to be added in further commits.
When 'resolve|unresolve' and 'move stream' actions occurs in
the same api call, 'This topic was marked as resolved|unresolved'
notification is not sent.
Both 'topic moved' and 'topic resolved' notification should be generated.
This commit updates the logic of when and where to send
'topic resolve|unresolve' notification. Unlike previous logic, notification
may be sent even in the case 'new_stream' is not None.
In general, 'topic resolved|unresolved' notification is sent to
'stream_being_edited'. In this particular case ('new_stream' is not None),
notification is sent to the 'new_stream' after check.
Test case is included.
Fixes: #22973
Black 23 enforces some slightly more specific rules about empty line
counts and redundant parenthesis removal, but the result is still
compatible with Black 22.
(This does not actually upgrade our Python environment to Black 23
yet.)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
We change the do_create_user function to use transaction.atomic
decorator instead of using with block. Due to this change, all
send_event calls are made inside transaction.on_commit.
Some other changes -
- Remove transaction.atomic decorator from send_inital_realm_messages
since it is now called inside a transaction.
- Made changes in tests which tests message events and notifications
to make sure on_commit callbacks are executed.
This commit changes the do_reactivate_user such that the complete function
is called inside an atomic transaction and events are called after the
transaction is commited using on_commit helper. This is a prep commit
for unsubscribing the bots of unaccessible private streams when reactivating
them.
A missed message email notification, where the message is the welcome
message sent by the welcome bot on account creation, get sent when
the user somehow not focuses the browser tab during account creation.
No missed message email or push notifications should be sent for the
messages generated by the welcome bot.
'internal_send_private_message' accepts a parameter
'disable_external_notifications' and is set to 'True' when the sender
is 'welcome bot'.
A check is introduced in `trivially_should_not_notify`, not to notify
if `disable_external_notifications` is true.
TestCases are updated to include the `disable_external_notifications`
check in the early (False) return patterns of `is_push_notifiable` and
`is_email_notifiable`.
One query reduced for both `test_create_user_with_multiple_streams`
and `test_register`.
Reason: When welcome bot sends message after user creation
`do_send_messages` calls `get_active_presence_idle_user_ids`,
`user_ids` in `get_active_presence_idle_user_ids` remains empty if
`disable_external_notifications` is true because `is_notifiable` returns
false.
`get_active_presence_idle_user_ids` calls `filter_presence_idle_user_ids`
and since the `user_ids` is empty, the query inside the function doesn't
get executed.
MissedMessageHookTest updated.
Fixes: #22884
This commit makes all the parameters after 'content' in
'internal_send_*', 'internal_prep_*' and '_internal_prep_*'
a mandatory keyword argument to increase code readability.
For alert words, we currently don't send email/push notifications --
only desktop notifications. Thus, we don't need to consider alert words
here, since desktop notifications do not utilize the presence status
calculated at this stage.
Tested manually that alert word desktop notifications work as expected.
When we implement email/push notifications for alert words (issues #5137
and #13127), we can add new fields like
`notifications_data.alert_word_email_notify`, similar to the existing
`notifications_data.wildcard_mention_email_notify`, which will allow us
to keep the alert word notifiability check inside the dataclass, similar
to how the mentions checks are done currently. So, even when that
feature is implemented, the code which this commit removes would be
unnecessary.
This commit renames "can_edit_topic_of_any_message" function
in models.py to "can_move_messages_to_another_topic" and
"user_can_edit_topic_of_any_message" function in settings_data.js
to "user_can_move_messages_to_another_topic".
This change is done since topic editing permission does not
depend on message sender now and messages are considered same
irrespective of whether the user who is editing the topic had sent
the message or not. This also makes the naming consistent with
what we use for the label of this setting in webapp and how we
describe this action in help documentation.
This commit changes the topic edit permssions to not depend whether the user
editing the message had sent the message or it was sent by someone else.
We only do backend changes in this commit and frontend changes will be done
in further commits.
Previously, we always allowed topic edits when the user themseleves had
sent the message not considering the edit_topic_policy and the 3-day time
limit. But now we consider all messages as same and editing is allowed only
according to edit_topic_policy setting and the time limit of 3 days in
addition for users who are not admins or moderators.
We change the topic and stream edit permssions to not depend on
allow_message_editing setting in the API and are allowed even
if allow_message_editing is set to False based on other settings
like edit_topic_policy and can_move_message_between_streams.
Fixes a part of #21739.
This solves the problem that resolving a topic with a long name (>60
characters) will cause the topic name to be truncated, and thus the edit
message code path thinks that the topic is being moved in addition to
being resolved.
We store the pre-truncation topic and use it to check against the
original topic when determining whether a topic is being moved while
getting (un)resovled or not.
Fixes#23482
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
We intended to send both the "topic was resolved" and the "topic was
moved here" notification when resolving and moving a topic at the same
time in #22312.
The previous implementation did not work as expected and it was only
sending the "topic was moved here" notification.
This removes the check for old_topic and new_topic that have
RESOLVED_TOPIC_PREFIX stripped in maybe_send_resolve_notifications, so
that the notification will be sent regardless if the topic name without
the prefix stays the same or not.
Note that weird topic handling ("✔ ✔✔ some topic") in the comments
was added in e231a03eff is unaffected. In case of confusion, the lstrip
check is not essential to detecting topic being unresolved/resolved.
As we mainly have that handled in the latter part of the helper.
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
This is a follow-up to d201229df8.
do_get_invites_controlled_by_user queries for Confirmations when finding
multiuse invites controlled by a user. This means that a revoked
multiuse invite cannot really be fetched here, because
do_revoke_multi_use_invite deletes the Confirmation object when revoking
the invitations. However, having a defensive assert here should be
useful to make this doesn't secretly break in the future if the query
used changes or if there are unexpected revoked multiuse invites with an
existing Confirmations for any (buggy) reason.
This allows us to revoke MultiUseInvites by changing their .status
instead of deleting them (which has been deleting the helpful tracking
information on PreregistrationUsers about which MultiUseInvite they came
from).
We do not create historical UserMessage rows, for messages that didn't
have one, while marking messages as read and simply ignore those messages.
We do so because there is no user of creating UserMessage rows and it just
wastes storage.
Note that we still allow to mark messages from unsubscribed streams as
read but only those which have UserMessage rows for them to handle the
case when the unread messages were not marked as read while unsubscribing
from the stream due to some race condition. In such cases, messages
will not be included in the unread count shown in "All messages" menu
(and stream is anyways not present in the left sidebar), but the message
border on the left is green if viewing the stream after unsusbcribing it.
So, to avoid the confusion for users, the messages will be marked as read
when user scrolls down.
Zulip's unread messages design has an invariant that all unread stream
messages must be in streams the user is subscribed to. For example, We
do not include the unread messages from unsubscribed streams in the
"unread_msgs" data structure in "/register" response and we mark all
unread messages as read when unsubscribing a user from a stream.
Previously, the mark as unread endpoint allowed violating that
invariant, allowing you to mark messages in any stream as unread.
Doing so caused the "message_details" data structures sent with
"update_message_flags" events to not contain messages from
unsubscribed streams, even though those messages were present in the
set of message IDs. These malformed events, in turn, caused exceptions
in the frontend's processing of such an event.
This change is paired with a separate UI change to not offer the "Mark
as unread" feature in such streams; with just this commit, that will
silently fail.
With some additions to the tests by tabbott.
This guarantees that the Realm is always non-None when we hit the
codepath is_static_or_current_realm_url via
do_change_stream_description, so that we can properly skip rewritting
some images.
Fixes#19405
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
I don't think this is used anywhere outside of tests, but we should have
this logic correct. If this function is used to send a message from a
user to a cross-realm bot, the message.realm should be the realm of the
user.
In the normal case, where a user send a message to a cross-realm bot
through the API is already handled correctly, this bug is unrelated.
Previously we did not send notification for topic-only edits.
Now, we add backend support for sending notification to topic-only
edits as well.
We would add support for this in webapp in further commits since
message edit UI will be updated as well. We just make sure that no
notifications are sent when editing topic using pencil icon in
message header.
We also change the API default for moving a topic to only notify the
new location, not the old one; this matches the current defaults in
the web UI.
Includes many tests.
We also update the puppeteer tests to test only content edit as
we are going to change the UI to not allow topic editing from
message edit UI. Also fixing the existing tests to pass while
doing topic edits is somewhat complex as notification message
is also sent to new topic by default.
Fixes#21712.
Co-authored-by: Aman Agrawal <amanagr@zulip.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@zulip.com>
The previous commit did this for revoking sessions. send_events should
be handled similarly too, to correctly handle calling do_deactivate_user
inside a transaction.
Sahil Batra
Prakhar Pratyush
Anders Kaseorg
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Zixuan James Li
Mateusz Mandera
Tim Abbott
Julia Bichler