Refactors the Cloud support view to pass in any sponsorship or
discount information about the Customer object for the realm,
which allows us to display any information submitted in a
sponsorship request.
The remote support view now returns results for deactivated remote
servers with those results sorted to the end and formatted to
visually stand out.
Forms to change sponsorship and discount fields on the customer
for the remote server or realm are not shown, but the data stored
on the customer object is shown, including any sponsorship request
information (if the customer had a sponsorship request pending when
it was deactivated).
Forms to schedule a plan are also not shown for deactivated servers
and their associated remote realms.
Forms and information for any current plan or scheduled plan, for
either the deactivated remote server or its associated remote
realms, are shown so that support staff can update those plans if
necessary.
As a follow-up to commit d66b7ad853, where we send internal emails
when an active paid plan is on a locally deleted remote realm, we
need search queries in the remote support view to return results
for these deactivated remote realms, instead of excluding them.
Only get the customer information once from the database.
Extract logic for any next plan (either scheduled or an offer) data
into a separate function and do not hit database twice when getting
the number of licenses at the next plan renewal.
Removes prefetch of remote realms on the remote server query
because, by excluding the system bot realm when this is referenced,
we end up hitting the database again.
Strips whitespace from query string and makes a few small updates
for readability.
We no longer want to migrate Legacy plans from server to realms, since
Legacy plans are not really a thing in the original sense anymore, since
February 15th.
Now they're just a tool to give temporary extensions of access to the
push notification service for users, when needed. And as such, it makes
no sense to migrate like that.
The remaining code in this function is for migrating (any) plan from the
server object to the realm object, if the server has just a single
realm.
The logic in the case where there's only one realm and the function
tries to migrate the server's plan to it, had two main unhandled edge
cases that would throw exceptions:
1.
```
remote_realm = RemoteRealm.objects.get(
uuid=realm_uuids[0], plan_type=RemoteRealm.PLAN_TYPE_SELF_MANAGED
)
```
This could throw an exception if the RemoteRealm exists, but has an
active e.g. Legacy plan. Then there'd be no object matching the
plan_type in the query, raising RemoteRealm.DoesNotExist.
2. If the RemoteRealm had e.g. a Legacy plan in the past, that's now
expired, then it'd have a Customer object. Meaning that the attempt
to move the server's customer to the realm:
`server_plan.customer = remote_realm_customer`
would trigger an IntegrityError since a RemoteRealm can't have two
Customer objects.
In simple cases the situation in (2) can still be easily migrated, by
moving the plan from the server's customer to the realm's customer.
In commit 230294c, the logic for creating the support links in the
remote activity chart were broken. Updates the constants so that
the links have the correct server information for the search query.
Expands the main query for remote servers to get the audit log
event datetime for when the server was created/registered.
The remote realm object has a field for when the remote realm
was created on the remote server.
Adds a link on the upgrade and billing pages that opens a stripe
billing portal for the customer to update their name and address
that will appear on invoices and receipts.
On the billing page, updating the credit card information will
no longer update the customer billing address, since they can
now do this directly through the billing portal. To be consistent
with the credit card form on the upgrade page, we still require
inputting a billing address for the card.
Note that, once an invoice is paid/complete, then changes to the
customer's name and address will not be applied to those invoices.
Instead of charging the customer using the attached payment
method and then creating the invoice, we create an invoice and
force an immediate payment for the invoice via the attached
payment method.
This is useful in the support view in case the audit log data is
stale and user counts are not updated for billing.
Also, renames formatting function for optional datetimes that is
used in the support and activity views/charts. And instead of
showing these datetime strings in the eastern US timezone, we
now show and label them as UTC.
Adds a column with the percentage rate that the remote server
or realm is paying on the displayed plan.
We display 0% for community plans that are 100% sponsored.
For legacy plans or plans with a scheduled downgrade, we
display a placeholder, "---". Otherwise, the value is
calculated from the CustomerPlan discount field.
Also, makes small updates to `next_plan_forms_support.html`.
Removes unneeded "btn" and "btn-default" classes, and updates
the placeholder text for the input as not marked for translation.
Also, renames `ad_hoc_query.html` to `activity_table.html`,
`realm_summary_table.html` to `installation_activity_table.html`,
and `activity_details_template.html` to `activity.html`.
Removes the style attribute in the installation activity template
and uses a CSS class, "installation-activity-header", to center the
h3 and p tags instead. This removes an exception from the custom
lint check.
View functions in `analytics/views/support.py` are moved to
`corporate/views/support.py`.
Shared activity functions in `analytics/views/activity_common.py`
are moved to `corporate/lib/activity.py`, which was also renamed
from `corporate/lib/analytics.py`.
This was a bug from 4715a058b0 where this
was just incorrectly called. get_realms_info_for_push_bouncer() is a
function meant to be called on a self-hosted server - and this
handle_... call happens on the bouncer. Therefore this returns all
zulipchat realms in product.
With the way, handle_... is being called right now, there's no reason
for it to have an argument for passing a list of realms. It should just
fetch the relevant RemoteRealm entries by itself, given the server arg.
The bug was that a user could do the first part of the flow twice,
receiving two confirmation links, before finishing signup. Then they
could use the first link, followed by the second, which would case an
IntegrityError due to trying to create the RemoteRealmBillingUser
for the second time.
When the second link gets clicked, we should just transparently redirect
the user further into the flow so that they can proceed.
Earlier, the 'handle_customer_migration_from_server_to_realms'
function was called during the send analytics step.
It resulted in an error for customers having multiple Zulip servers,
one for testing and the others for not-testing, sharing a
push bouncer registration.
The migration step when run in a test instance caused customers to
have their legacy plan migrated to a test realm, resulting in them
losing their legacy plan.
This commit moves the migration step to run during plan management
login step. This reduces the chances of losing legacy
plan as we expect them to only verify that 8.0 upgrade works and
not bother trying to login to plan management from their test instance.
- Make `self.write_to_audit_log` support a `background_update:
bool=False` parameter that can be passed when code that might have an
acting user happens to trigger a background update.
- Make `make_end_of_cycle_updates_if_needed` pass that parameter for its
direct audit log writes.
- Audit code that `make_end_of_cycle_updates_if_needed` calls and make
sure those write audit logs this way too.
- Pass the user in the `billing_page` code that had to avoid it as a
workaround:
```
# BUG: This should pass the acting_user; this is just working
# around that make_end_of_cycle_updates_if_needed doesn't do audit
# logging not using the session user properly.
billing_session = RealmBillingSession(user=None, realm=user.realm)
```
If server has plan, deny login for realm.
If realm has plan, deny login for server.
Co-authored-by: Aman Agrawal <amanagr@zulip.com>
Co-authored-by: Alya Abbott <alya@zulip.com>
Also avoid prompting for full name time more than once.
Adds TOS version field to Remote server user.
Co-authored-by: Karl Stolley <karl@zulip.com>
Co-authored-by: Aman Agrawal <amanagr@zulip.com>
This is a general link for logging into the billing system on behalf of
a server, but it's tied to the .contact_email and takes the user
straight to the /deactivate/ page via the next_page mechanism.
When a self-hosted Zulip server does a data export and then import
process into a different hosting environment (i.e. not sharing the
RemoteZulipServer with the original, we'll have various things that
fail where we look up the RemoteRealm by UUID and find it but the
RemoteZulipServer it is associated with is the wrong one.
Right now, we ask user to contact support via an error page but
might develop UI to help user do the migration directly.
The way the flow goes now is this:
1. The user initiaties login via "Billing" in the gear menu.
2. That takes them to `/self-hosted-billing/` (possibly with a
`next_page` param if we use that for some gear menu options).
3. The server queries the bouncer to give the user a link with a signed
access token.
4. The user is redirected to that link (on `selfhosting.zulipchat.com`).
Now we have two cases, either the user is logging in for the first time
and already did in the past.
If this is the first time, we have:
5. The user is asked to fill in their email in a form that's shown,
pre-filled with the value provided inside the signed access token.
They POST this to the next endpoint.
6. The next endpoint sends a confirmation email to that address and asks
the user to go check their email.
7. The user clicks the link in their email is taken to the
from_confirmation endpoint.
8. Their initial RemoteBillingUser is created, a new signed link like in
(3) is generated and they're transparently taken back to (4),
where now that they have a RemoteBillingUser, they're handled
just like a user who already logged in before:
If the user already logged in before, they go straight here:
9. "Confirm login" page - they're shown their information (email and
full_name), can update
their full name in the form if they want. They also accept ToS here
if necessary. They POST this form back to
the endpoint and finally have a logged in session.
10. They're redirected to billing (or `next_page`) now that they have
access.
For the last form (with Full Name and ToS consent field), this pretty
shamelessly re-uses and directly renders the
corporate/remote_realm_billing_finalize_login_confirmation.html
template. That's probably good in terms of re-use, but calls for a
clean-up commit that will generalize the name of this template and the
classes/ids in the HTML.
We need to manually process the parameters from request.body
since PATCH parameters are present in body and pass it in
`request.POST` to allow PATCH requests via `update_plan_for..` to
work.
Adds a helper since there are only a few different parameters for
all BillingSession child clases, `build_support_url`.
Also, renames `get_support_url` to more explicitly note that it
is for realms: `get_realm_support_url`.
This cannot be so short if we're adding an intermittent "check your
details, agree to ToS and confirm login" page. We're also considering
having users potentially share these links.
These names were picked when I still thought these endpoints would serve
both the RemoteRealm and RemoteZulipServer based flows. Now that it's
known these are RemoteRealm-only endpoints, the _server in the names no
longer makes sense.
Analogical to the more complex mechanism implemented for the RemoteRealm
flow in a previous commit in
authenticated_remote_realm_management_endpoint.
As explained in the code comment, this is much easier because:
In this flow, we can only redirect to our local "legacy server flow
login" page. That means that we can do it universally whether the user
has an expired
identity_dict, or just lacks any form of authentication info at all -
there are no security concerns since this is just a local redirect.
Analogical to 1df8e00d7c which implemented
this for the RemoteRealm auth flow.
Except here we don't need to add next_page to the IdentityDict
(LegacyServerIdentityDict in this flow), because the redirect happens
immediately at remote_billing_legacy_server_login upon login - so no
need to have a structure to carry the info through intermediate steps.
Alex Vandiver
Lauryn Menard
Anders Kaseorg
Aman Agrawal
Mateusz Mandera
Prakhar Pratyush
Karl Stolley
Karl Stolley
Tim Abbott
Alya Abbott
Alya Abbott