We now use a `.values` query to get just the fields we need
in order to fulfill '/json/users' requests.
The main benefit is that we don't do O(N) queries for bot
owners, but we also have less data on UserProfile to process.
On receiving a request for deleting a reaction, just check if such
a reaction exists or not. If it exists then just delete the reaction
otherwise send an error message that such a reaction doesn't exist.
It doesn't make sense to check whether an emoji name is valid or not.
This commit prepares us to introduce a StreamLite class. For
these tests, we don't care about the actual contents of the
Stream, just the right stream is there.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
We now return user_ids for subscribers to streams in add-stream
events. This allows us to eliminate the UserLite class for
both bulk adds and bulk removes. It also simplifies some JS
code that already wanted to use user_ids, not emails.
Fixes#6898
This test suite works by using the expected_output and new text_output
fields in the bugdown test cases to verify that each syntax is
correctly translated by this new function.
Some of these translations, like strikethrough, are kinda poor; but
this framework should make it easy to iterate on the formatting.
Fixes: #6720.
It's fairly difficult to debug tests that use
EventsRegisterTest.do_test, and when they fail on
Travis, it's particularly challengning. Now we make
the main diff less noisy, and we also include
the events that were applied.
This reverts commit ba8dc62132.
As best I can tell, the old configuration was correct for what Django
wanted. Further testing is required, but this at least brings
.tx/config to match the actual filenames; I think our Chinese
translations have been broken until now.
This endpoint is part of the old tutorial, which we've removed, and
has some security downsides as well.
This includes a minor refactoring of the tests.
Sort of a hacky hammer, but
* The original design of the analytics system mistakenly attempted to play
nicely with non-UTC datetimes.
* Timezone errors are really hard to find and debug, and don't jump out that
easily when reading code.
I don't know of any outstanding errors, but putting a few "assert this
timezone is in UTC" around will hopefully reduce the chance that there are
any current or future timezone errors.
Note that none of these functions are called outside of the analytics code
(and tests). This commit also doesn't change any current behavior, assuming
a database where all datetimes have been being stored in UTC.
Previously, entering a non-UTC end time for a daily stat would give you
incorrect results. This is because:
* All daily stats are collected at and have end_times in the database in
midnight UTC.
* For daily stats, time_range returns a list of datetimes at midnight in the
timezone of its end argument. These datetimes are the only ones we look
for when looking for rows corresponding to the stat in the database.
* Previously, we passed on the end argument from the API to time_range,
without modification.
The logic to apply events to page_params['unread_msgs'] was
complicated due to the aggregated data structures that we pass
down to the client.
Now we defer the aggregation logic until after we apply the
events. This leads to some simplifications in that codepath,
as well as some performance enhancements.
The intermediate data structure has sets and dictionaries that
generally are keyed by message_id, so most message-related
updates are O(1) in nature.
Also, by waiting to compute the counts until the end, it's a
bit less messy to try to keep track of increments/decrements.
Instead, we just update the dictionaries and sets during the
event-apply phase.
This change also fixes some corner cases:
* We now respect mutes when updating counts.
* For message updates, instead of bluntly updating
the whole topic bucket, we update individual
message ids.
Unfortunately, this change doesn't seem to address the pesky
test that fails sporadically on Travis, related to mention
updates. It will change the symptom, slightly, though.
Instead of using `unified_reactions` mapping start using
`name_to_codepoint` mapping for converting emoji name to
codepoints. We were using `unified_reactions` mapping
because prior to emoji web PR `name_to_codepoint` mapping
was generated using emoji_map.json which contained old
codepoints but for reactions new codepoints were required
to display them using sprite sheets.
Create a new custom email backend which would automatically
logs the emails that are send in the dev environment as
well as print a friendly message in console to visit /emails
for accessing all the emails that are sent in dev environment.
Since django.core.mail.backends.console.EmailBackend is no longer
userd emails would not be printed to the console anymore.
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.
Postgres doesn't like them, we don't have an obvious way to escape
them, and they tend to be sent by buggy tools where it'd be better for
the user to get an error.
This fixes a 500 we were getting occasionally.
Steve Howell
Harshit Bansal
Tim Abbott
Greg Price
derAnfaenger
Umair Khan
Alena Volkova
Rishi Gupta
Vishnu Ks
kunall17
Cynthia Lin