certbot-auto doesn’t work on Ubuntu 20.04, and won’t be updated; we
migrate to instead using the certbot package shipped with the OS
instead. Also made sure that sure certbot gets installed when running
zulip-puppet-apply, to handle existing systems.
We already override the umask in upgrade-zulip-stage-2, but that’s too
late since we’ve already written a bunch of files in stage 1. I would
have removed the stage 2 override, but the OS upgrade documentation
references running stage 2 directly.
Fixes#15164. Note that an affected installation will need to upgrade
twice, because the first upgrade uses the old stage 1.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This was written by Rishi for a very brief purpose a few years ago,
and it doesn't serve much purpose now other than to be a place we
update in code sweeps.
We're migrating to using the cleaner zulip.com domain, which involves
changing all of our links from ReadTheDocs and other places to point
to the cleaner URL.
This commit adds `name` attribute for the backends that do not
have them.
This is just a kind of prep commit in case if we want to use
`self.logger.xxxx()` in the future which is dependent on the
`name` attribute. But right now these logging calls aren't used
anywhere in those backends.
`HTTPError` has empty string for `str(HTTPError())`. Logging it
as it is would not be much helpful. So, this commits adds code
to log the name of error also.
Adds a top-level logger in `settings.LOGGING` `zulip.auth`
with the default handlers `DEFAULT_ZULIP_HANDLERS` and
an extra hanlder that writes to `/var/log/zulip/auth.log`.
Each auth backend uses it's own logger, `self.logger` which
is in form 'zulip.auth.<backend name>'.
This way it's clear which auth backend generated the log
and is easier to look for all authentication logs in one file.
Besides the above mentioned changes, `name` attribute is added to
`ZulipAuthMixin` so that these logging kind of calls wouldn't raise
any issues when logging is tried in a class without `name` attribute.
Also in the tests we use a new way to check if logger calls are made
i.e. we use `assertLogs` to test if something is logged.
Thanks to Mateusz Mandera for the idea of having a seperate logger
for auth backends and suggestion of using `assertLogs`.
Since owners have the highest privilege level, it made little sense to
sandwich them between administrators and guests.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This commit removes short_name and client_id fields from the user
objects returned by get_profile_backend because neither of them
had a purpose.
* short_name hasn't been present anywhere else in the Zulip API for
several years, and isn't set through any coherent algorithm.
* client_id was a forgotten 2013-era predecessor to the queue_id field
returned by the register_event_queue process.
The combination of these changes gets us close to having `get_profile`
have the exact same format as other endpoints fetching a user object.
This commit changes get_profile_backend to be based on format_user_row
such that it's a superset of the fields for our other endpoints for
getting data on a user.
To be clear, this does not removes any of the exisiting fields, that
were returned by this endpoint.
This change adds some fields to the User object returned by the
endpoint. API docs are updated accordingly for the added fields.
Slack owners and primary owners will be mapped to zulip
realm owners on import.
Previously, we mapped the owner and primary owner roles of slack
to realm admins in zulip. As we have added ROLE_REALM_OWNER in
8bbc074, we now map slack owners and primary owners to owners in
zulip.
Tests are modified for checking all the 3 cases-
- Slack workspace primary owner
- Slack workspace owner
- Slack workspace admin
This commit also has docs changes in 'import-from-slack.md'.
Calling jwt.decode without an algorithms list raises a
DeprecationWarning. This is for protecting against
symmetric/asymmetric key confusion attacks.
This is a backwards-incompatible configuration change.
Fixes#15207.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Generated by pyupgrade --py36-plus --keep-percent-format, but with the
NamedTuple changes reverted (see commit
ba7906a3c6, #15132).
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
At the time of creating streams in test_counts.py we earlier did not saved
recipient in the stream object.
stream.recipient is used in many functions so they would throw error.
The right long-term fix here is probably to just use the standard
stream creation functions rather than having a hacky duplicate
here.
Previously, it was unnecessarily difficult to parse the sentence to
determine that "HTTP response" and "internal state of the server
following the request" are the coherent ideas. Even if length wasn't
an issue, e.g. "... and checking both the A and B are correct", the
sentence still feels a bit fragile without a "that".
Since the second phrase is indeed relatively long, and "internal state
of the server" is a reasonable guess for the second coherent idea, the
"the" helps to reset the reader's expectation about where the next
coherent idea starts, and ends.
Lastly, having "both" in front of the two phrases encourages an
assumption that they're shorter (which is especially problematic for
the second phrase), while having it at the end of the sentence helps
to anchor the end of the second phrase; this is especially true since
the absence of "both" before that point encourages an assumption that
you haven't finished reading yet, given that two things have been
mentioned.
This declaration already exists in the default CSS.
This declaration was present when the edit history modal was first
given a night mode (then called "dark mode") style in November 2017 in
4f81bdd0a6. It also existed in the
default CSS at that time.
Previously, topic edit diffs in the edit history modal were not
highlighted in the same way as content diffs because the highlighting
CSS rules were inside a .rendered_markdown block. So they affected the
content diffs, which are classed as such, but not the topic diffs.
This commit moves the highlight rules to a
.message_edit_history_content block inside the already existing
#message-edit-history block. .message_edit_history_content had
already existed in the edit history template message_edit_history.hbs,
and is assigned to both the content and topic diffs.
The ability to see topic edits in the edit history was added in
March 2019 in 38be5ea74394d2fd8586038de6ac447b4bbfbf67; the
highlighting worked at that time. It broke four mounths later in July
2019 in 38ffde37e5 when the highlight
rules were moved into a .rendered_markdown block after having been
global.
(As a further aside, .rendered_markdown was only added to the content
diffs in April 2019 in 5c36918c17.
.message_edit_history_content had been first added, to the content
diffs, in February 2019 in 7d42d7b4dbe6eb144a148135db50ad35efc01295.)
Aside from fixing topic edit diffs, this change is just more correct;
the highlight rules don't belong under .rendered_markdown, and they
don't need to be applied globally.
Previously, the edit history modal did not respect the time format
setting (whether to show times in 12-hour or 24-hour format) when
displaying message edit times (#15171).
This commit fixes that by passing the edit times to
timerender.stringify_time(), which takes that setting into account,
instead of just doing a static string formatting operation.
This bug has existed since February 2017, when the edit history UI
was first added in 1a697b6e02.
Fixes#15171.
Currently, the edit history modal does not respect the time format
setting (whether to show times in 12-hour or 24-hour format) when
displaying message edit times (#15171).
This commit refactors how fetch_and_render_message_history() handles
times in order to make fixing that issue in a reasonable way easier.
It will be fixed in a following commit.
Previously, the show_date_row flag for the first entry in the edit
history modal was directly set to `true`, while in all other entries
it was calculated with identical code. Though show_date_row for the
first entry should indeed always be true, there's no need for it to be
a special case.
In preparation for factoring out the calculation of show_date_row,
this commit nominally calculates the first entry's show_date_row with
the same code that is used to calculate show_date_row for all other
entries. Nominally, because it will still always end up being true.
Previously, the logic for when to add a date row to an edit history
entry was checking against the date of the original message (which is
always the first entry in the message history), not the date of the
previous edit. This caused every edit not made on the date of the
original message to show a date row, even if it wasn't the first edit
on that date.
This commit fixes that bug by updating prev_timestamp after processing
each message history entry, whereas before it was only updated after
processing the first one — the original message.
This bug has existed since June 2017, when
84e5fe733c changed how date rows worked;
from only showing one at the top labeled "Earliest" to each entry
having a possibilty of showing one.
Previously it was impossible for a topic-only edit to show a date row
in any circumstance; the code that handles topic-only edits didn't
even attempt to set show_date_row, the flag that determines whether a
date row should be rendered. Now a topic-only edit will show a date row
in the same circumstances as any other edit[1].
This bug has existed since March 2019, when rendering of topic-only
edits was first added in 38be5ea743.
[1] Currently, "the same circumstances as any other edit" means
there'll be a date row on the original message, and then on every edit
not made on the same date as the original message, even if it was't
the first edit on the date it was made. This is a bug that will be
fixed in a following commit. This commit is being made first since
it's fixing a lack-of-information bug, whereas the other bug is a
somewhat less important repeating-information bug.
arpit551
Anders Kaseorg
Tim Abbott
Dinesh
sahil839
majordwarf
rht
Sharif Naas
Johannes Hochreiter