This commit allows clients to register client_gravatar=True, and
then we recognize that flag for message events. If the flag is
True, we will not calculate gravatar URLs and let the clients do
it themselves. (Clients can calculate gravatar URLs based on
emails with just a little bit of code.)
This refactoring doesn't change behavior, but it sets us up
to more easily handle a register setting for `client_gravatar`,
which will allow clients to tell us they're going to compute
their own gravatar URLs.
The `client_gravatar` flag already exists in our code, but it
is only used for Django views (users/messages) but not for
Zulip events.
The main change is to move the call to `set_sender_avatar` into
`finalize_payload`, which adds the boolean `client_gravatar`
parameter to that function. And then we update various callers
to supply that flag.
One small performance benefit of this change is that we now
lazily compute the client message payloads in
`event_queue.process_message_event` now, so this will improve
performance if all interested clients have the same value of
`apply_markdown`. But the change here is really preparing us
for the additional boolean parameter, which will cause us to
have four variations of the payload.
In do_send_messages, we only produce one dictionary for
the event queues, instead of different flavors for text
vs. html. This prevents two unnecessary queries to the
database.
It also means we only put one dictionary on the "message"
event queue instead of two, albeit a wider one that has
some values that won't be sent to the actual clients.
This wider dictionary from MessageDict.wide_dict is also
used for the `feedback_messages` queue and service bot
queues. Since the extra fields are possibly useful down
the road, and they'll just be ignored for now, we don't
bother to remove them. Also, those queue processors won't
have access to `content_type`, which they shouldn't need.
Fixes#6947
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.
While the missedmessage_hook logic originally did a reasonably good
job of avoiding double-sending notifications, there was a corner case
it didn't handle, namely a user who had been presence-idle when a
message was sent and became also event-queue-idle as well within the
next 10 minutes. For those users, they got a notification at message
send time, and the missedmessage_hook would deliver it a second time.
We fix this by just checking the conveniently available push_notified
and email_notified variables that indicate whether the message already
had a notification triggered.
Fixes#7031.
This makes tests of queue processors more realistic,
by adding a parameter to `queue_json_publish` that
calls a queue's consumer function if accessed in a test.
Fixes part of #6542.
This field would get overwritten with an improper value when
we looped over multiple clients, due to not making full copies
of the message dictionary. This failure would be somewhat
random depending on how clients were ordered in the loop.
The only consumers of this field were the mobile app and the
apply-events-to-unread-counts logic. Both of these will now
use `flags` instead.
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.
This ensures that as we expand the logic for under what circumstances
email and push notifications should be sent, we can be confident about
this code path always doing the right thing.
This fixes a problem introduced in the recent refactoring where
`triggers` would not be set correctly when a push or email
notification was triggered by missedmessage_hook.
Fixes#6612.
Now, the two code paths do the same thing for this check.
It seems like there may be more work to do here, in that
wildcard_mentioned messages seem to not be eligible for sending
email/push notifications. We probably want to add some logic there
for the user doing the mention to control whether or not it does.
This is a nonfunctional refactor, designed primarily to make it
simpler to extend this code path when we later add support for
controlling whether email notifications go out on stream messages.
Previously, due to a logic bug, this feature would also send email
notifications for all messages on the stream, which is definitely not
the intent. The recent refactoring we just did makes the logic more
obvious.
This creates a lot of logging noise, and also causes confusion
for new contributors when something isn't working as they expect
and they aren't sure if this message is normal or an error.
Usually a small minority of users are eligible to receive missed
message emails or mobile notifications.
We now filter users first before hitting UserPresence to find idle
users. We also simply check for the existence of recent activity
rather than borrowing the more complicated data structures that we
use for the buddy list.
This fixes the original issue that #5598 was the root cause of; when
the user returns to a Zulip browser tab after they've been idle past
the timeout (10 min, per IDLE_EVENT_QUEUE_TIMEOUT_SECS), we now
correctly reload the page even if they're using Zulip in German or
another non-English language where we have a translation for the
relevant error message.
This provides the main infrastructure for fixing #5598. From here,
it's a matter of on the one hand upgrading exception handlers -- the
many except-blocks in the codebase that look for JsonableError -- to
look beyond the string `msg` and pass on the machine-readable full
error information to their various downstream recipients, and on the
other hand adjusting places where we raise errors to take advantage
of this mechanism to give the errors structured details.
In an ideal future, I think all exception handlers that look (or
should look) for a JsonableError would use its contents in structured
form, never mentioning `msg`; but the majority of error sites might
continue to just instantiate JsonableError with a string message. The
latter is the simplest thing to do, and probably most error types will
never have code looking for them specifically.
Because the new API refactors the `to_json_error_msg` method which was
designed for subclasses to override, update the 4 subclasses that did
so to take full advantage of the new API instead.
In order to benefit from the modern conveniences of type-checking,
add concrete, non-Any types to the interface for JsonableError.
Relatedly, there's no need at this point to duck-type things at
the places where we receive a JsonableError and try to use it.
Simplify those by using straightforward standard typing.
I pushed a bunch of commits that attempted to introduce
the concept of `client_message_id` into our server, as
part of cleaning up our codepaths related to messages you
sent (both for the locally echoed case and for the host
case).
When we deployed this, we had some strange failures involving
double-echoed messages and issues advancing the pointer that appeared
related to #5779. We didn't get to the bottom of exactly why the PR
caused havoc, but I decided there was a cleaner approach, anyway.
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
rht
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
derAnfaenger
Greg Price
Sarah
Steve Howell