We make the description parameter in create_user_group as keyword-only
to improve readability. We would also keep the is_system_group
parameter which will be added in future keyword-only.
Tuples cannot be deserialized from JSON.
While we do use these validators for other things, like event
dictionaries, we have migrated the API away from using those. The
last use was removed in 4f3d5f2d87
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
These changes are all independent of each other; I just didn’t feel
like making dozens of commits for them.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Calling `email.save()` is only needed if we altered `email.address`;
it is unnecessary if we called `email.users.add(...)` which will have
done its own INSERT.
This fixes two bugs: the most obvious is that there is a race where a
ScheduledEmail object could be observed in the window between creation
and when users are added; this is a momentary instance when the object
has no users, but one that will resolve itself.
The more subtle is that .save() will, if no records were found to be
updated, _re-create_ the object as it exists in memory, using an
INSERT[1]. Thus, there is a race with `deliver_scheduled_emails`
between when the users are added, and when `email.save()` runs:
1. Web request creates ScheduledEmail object
2. Web request creates ScheduledEmailUsers object
3. deliver_scheduled_emails locks the former, preventing updates.
4. deliver_scheduled_emails deletes both objects, commits, releasing lock
5. Web request calls `email.save()`; UPDATE finds no rows, so it
re-creates the ScheduledEmail object.
6. Future deliver_scheduled_emails runs find a ScheduledEmail with no
attending ScheduledEmailUsers objects
Wrapping the logical creation of both of these in a single transaction
avoids both of these races.
[1] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.2/ref/models/instances/#how-django-knows-to-update-vs-insert
Only clear_scheduled_emails previously took a lock on the users before
removing them; make deliver_scheduled_emails do so as well, by using
prefetch_related to ensure that the table appears in the SELECT. This
is not necessary for correctness, since all accesses of
ScheduledEmailUser first access the ScheduledEmail and lock it; it is
merely for consistency.
Since SELECT ... FOR UPDATE takes an UPDATE lock on all tables
mentioned in the SELECT, merely doing the prefetch is sufficient to
lock both tables; no `on=(...)` is needed to `select_for_update`.
This also does not address the pre-existing potential deadlock from
these two use cases, where both try to lock the same ScheduledEmail
rows in opposite orders.
No codepath except tests passes in more than one user_profile -- and
doing so is what makes the deduplication necessary.
Simplify the API by making it only take one user_profile id.
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, the output would make it look like we sent an actual email
to the first user in the dry_run output, which is very confusing.
The `dry_run` code path already prints all the accounts that would
have been emailed at the end, so there's no reason to have this line
before the dry_run check.
Additionally, we move after the `get_connection` check because
failures at that stage shouldn't result in logging an attempt to send
an email.
This way we can stop reading as soon as we get to the body. Also,
send an Accept header, check that the request was actually successful,
use lxml.etree.iterparse instead of a broken hand-rolled state
machine, and support XHTML, all for negative 28 lines of code.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This reverts commit 1965584eec.
This syntax has a bad interaction with table syntax and needs to be
rethought.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This is more efficient than get_lexer_by_name, since we don’t need to
instantiate the class just to get its name.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
The BlockingChannel annotations in TornadoQueueClient were flat-out
wrong. BlockingChannel and Channel have no common base classes.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This fixes a regression in de04f0ad67.
We'll do a proper test in a follow-up commit; this is a quick fix to
make sure master works.
The emails will bounce, but it'll create all sorts of infrastructure
headaches.
We added "user_settings" object containing all the user settings in
previous commit. This commit modifies the code to send the existing
setting fields in the top-level object only if user_settings_object
client_capabilities field is False.
This commit adds "user_settings_object" field to
client_capabilities which will be used to determine
if the client needs 'update_display_settings' and
'update_global_notifications' event.
We send a event with type 'user_settings' on updating user's display
and notification settings.
The old event types - 'update_global_notifications' and
'update_display_settings', are still supported for backwards
compatibility.
Return zulip_merge_base alongside zulip_version
in `/register`, `/event` and `/server_settings`
endpoint so that the value can be used by other
clients.
The main reason why this is needed is because this seems to be
convention and because we can't easily test event creation without
doing this.
Signed-off-by: Hemanth V. Alluri <hdrive1999@gmail.com>
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.
In this commit:
* We update the `UserStatus` model to accept
`AbstractReaction` as a base class so, we can get all the
fields related to store status emoji.
* We update the user status endpoint
(`users/me/status`) to accept status emoji fields.
* We update the user status event to add status emoji
fields.
Co-authored-by: Yash Rathore <33805964+YashRE42@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit replaces boolean field add_emoji_by_admins_only with an
integer field add_custom_emoji_policy as we would also add full members
and moderators option for this setting in further commits.
This removes a bunch of non-functional duplicate JavaScript, HTML, and
CSS that was interfering with maintenance on the functional originals,
because it was never clear how to update the duplicates or how to
check that you’d updated the duplicates correctly.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This commit moves "enter_sends" setting to property_types dict.
With this change, changing enter_sends setting also sends an
event of type "update_display_settings" and thus enables us
to live-update the UI.
When calling some functions or assigning values to certain attributes,
the arguments/right operand do not match the exact type that the
functions/attributes expect, and thus we fix that by converting types
beforehand.
Cross realm bots will soon stop being a thing. This param is responsible
for displaying "System Bot" in the user info popover - so this rename is the
right way to handle the situation.
We will likely want to rename the `cross_realm_bots` section as well,
but that is a more involved API migration.
Sahil Batra
Anders Kaseorg
Alex Vandiver
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
PIG208
Tim Abbott
tushar912
Priyansh Garg
Steve Howell
Gaurav Pandey
Lefteris Kyriazanos
Ganesh Pawar
rht
Hemanth V. Alluri
Riken Shah
sahil839
Mateusz Mandera
Dinesh