For alert words, we currently don't send email/push notifications --
only desktop notifications. Thus, we don't need to consider alert words
here, since desktop notifications do not utilize the presence status
calculated at this stage.
Tested manually that alert word desktop notifications work as expected.
When we implement email/push notifications for alert words (issues #5137
and #13127), we can add new fields like
`notifications_data.alert_word_email_notify`, similar to the existing
`notifications_data.wildcard_mention_email_notify`, which will allow us
to keep the alert word notifiability check inside the dataclass, similar
to how the mentions checks are done currently. So, even when that
feature is implemented, the code which this commit removes would be
unnecessary.
This commit renames "can_edit_topic_of_any_message" function
in models.py to "can_move_messages_to_another_topic" and
"user_can_edit_topic_of_any_message" function in settings_data.js
to "user_can_move_messages_to_another_topic".
This change is done since topic editing permission does not
depend on message sender now and messages are considered same
irrespective of whether the user who is editing the topic had sent
the message or not. This also makes the naming consistent with
what we use for the label of this setting in webapp and how we
describe this action in help documentation.
This commit changes the topic edit permssions to not depend whether the user
editing the message had sent the message or it was sent by someone else.
We only do backend changes in this commit and frontend changes will be done
in further commits.
Previously, we always allowed topic edits when the user themseleves had
sent the message not considering the edit_topic_policy and the 3-day time
limit. But now we consider all messages as same and editing is allowed only
according to edit_topic_policy setting and the time limit of 3 days in
addition for users who are not admins or moderators.
We change the topic and stream edit permssions to not depend on
allow_message_editing setting in the API and are allowed even
if allow_message_editing is set to False based on other settings
like edit_topic_policy and can_move_message_between_streams.
Fixes a part of #21739.
This solves the problem that resolving a topic with a long name (>60
characters) will cause the topic name to be truncated, and thus the edit
message code path thinks that the topic is being moved in addition to
being resolved.
We store the pre-truncation topic and use it to check against the
original topic when determining whether a topic is being moved while
getting (un)resovled or not.
Fixes#23482
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
We intended to send both the "topic was resolved" and the "topic was
moved here" notification when resolving and moving a topic at the same
time in #22312.
The previous implementation did not work as expected and it was only
sending the "topic was moved here" notification.
This removes the check for old_topic and new_topic that have
RESOLVED_TOPIC_PREFIX stripped in maybe_send_resolve_notifications, so
that the notification will be sent regardless if the topic name without
the prefix stays the same or not.
Note that weird topic handling ("✔ ✔✔ some topic") in the comments
was added in e231a03eff is unaffected. In case of confusion, the lstrip
check is not essential to detecting topic being unresolved/resolved.
As we mainly have that handled in the latter part of the helper.
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
This is a follow-up to d201229df8.
do_get_invites_controlled_by_user queries for Confirmations when finding
multiuse invites controlled by a user. This means that a revoked
multiuse invite cannot really be fetched here, because
do_revoke_multi_use_invite deletes the Confirmation object when revoking
the invitations. However, having a defensive assert here should be
useful to make this doesn't secretly break in the future if the query
used changes or if there are unexpected revoked multiuse invites with an
existing Confirmations for any (buggy) reason.
This allows us to revoke MultiUseInvites by changing their .status
instead of deleting them (which has been deleting the helpful tracking
information on PreregistrationUsers about which MultiUseInvite they came
from).
We do not create historical UserMessage rows, for messages that didn't
have one, while marking messages as read and simply ignore those messages.
We do so because there is no user of creating UserMessage rows and it just
wastes storage.
Note that we still allow to mark messages from unsubscribed streams as
read but only those which have UserMessage rows for them to handle the
case when the unread messages were not marked as read while unsubscribing
from the stream due to some race condition. In such cases, messages
will not be included in the unread count shown in "All messages" menu
(and stream is anyways not present in the left sidebar), but the message
border on the left is green if viewing the stream after unsusbcribing it.
So, to avoid the confusion for users, the messages will be marked as read
when user scrolls down.
Zulip's unread messages design has an invariant that all unread stream
messages must be in streams the user is subscribed to. For example, We
do not include the unread messages from unsubscribed streams in the
"unread_msgs" data structure in "/register" response and we mark all
unread messages as read when unsubscribing a user from a stream.
Previously, the mark as unread endpoint allowed violating that
invariant, allowing you to mark messages in any stream as unread.
Doing so caused the "message_details" data structures sent with
"update_message_flags" events to not contain messages from
unsubscribed streams, even though those messages were present in the
set of message IDs. These malformed events, in turn, caused exceptions
in the frontend's processing of such an event.
This change is paired with a separate UI change to not offer the "Mark
as unread" feature in such streams; with just this commit, that will
silently fail.
With some additions to the tests by tabbott.
This guarantees that the Realm is always non-None when we hit the
codepath is_static_or_current_realm_url via
do_change_stream_description, so that we can properly skip rewritting
some images.
Fixes#19405
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
I don't think this is used anywhere outside of tests, but we should have
this logic correct. If this function is used to send a message from a
user to a cross-realm bot, the message.realm should be the realm of the
user.
In the normal case, where a user send a message to a cross-realm bot
through the API is already handled correctly, this bug is unrelated.
Previously we did not send notification for topic-only edits.
Now, we add backend support for sending notification to topic-only
edits as well.
We would add support for this in webapp in further commits since
message edit UI will be updated as well. We just make sure that no
notifications are sent when editing topic using pencil icon in
message header.
We also change the API default for moving a topic to only notify the
new location, not the old one; this matches the current defaults in
the web UI.
Includes many tests.
We also update the puppeteer tests to test only content edit as
we are going to change the UI to not allow topic editing from
message edit UI. Also fixing the existing tests to pass while
doing topic edits is somewhat complex as notification message
is also sent to new topic by default.
Fixes#21712.
Co-authored-by: Aman Agrawal <amanagr@zulip.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@zulip.com>
The previous commit did this for revoking sessions. send_events should
be handled similarly too, to correctly handle calling do_deactivate_user
inside a transaction.
This commit adds the OPTIONAL .realm attribute to Message
(and ArchivedMessage), with the server changes for making new Messages
have this set. Old Messages still have to be migrated to backfill this,
before it can be non-nullable.
Appropriate test changes to correctly set .realm for Messages the tests
manually create are included here as well.
zerver/migrations/0240_usermessage_migrate_bigint_id_into_id.py needs
to be updated to account for Django 4.1 creating AutoField as an
identity column rather than a serial column.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Previously, we included all three message edit related settings
("allow_message_editing", "message_content_edit_limit_seconds" and
"edit_topic_policy") in the event data and api response irrespective
of which of these settings were changed. Now, we only include changed
settings and separate events are sent for each setting if more than
one of them is changed.
Note that the previous typed in event_schema.py for
`message_content_edit_limit_seconds` incorrectly did not allow `None`
as a value, which is used to encode no limit.
This refactors and renames user_ids_muting_topic to accept a parameter
'visibility_policy' and fetch user IDs that have a specific
visibility_policy(provided as the parameter) set for a topic.
Fourth step in making user status `away` a deprecated way to access
`presence_enabled` for clients supporting older servers, and
checkpoint commit prior to deleting the `status` field from the
UserStatus model.
Part of transitioning from 'unavailable' user status feature to
'invisible mode' user presence feature.
When a user toggles a status update for `away=True|False`, we now update
their `presence_enabled` setting to match (`away!=presence_enabled`).
First step of making user status `away` updates a deprecated way to
access presence_enabled for clients supporting older servers, and
checkpoint commit before migrating users with a current UserStatus
of `status=AWAY` to have their `presence_enabled` set to `False`.
Note that when user status `away` is updated, we now send 4 events:
user_status, user_settings, presence, and update_global_notifications.
Also, this means that these updates change the UserPresence.status
value, which impacts the test for importing and exporting user
information.
Part of transitioning from 'unavailable' user status feature to
'invisible mode' user presence feature.
We need to move this function to a separate actions file specifically
for `user_status` because otherwise we will have a circular import
between `actions/user_settings.py` and `actions/presence.py` in an
upcoming commit.
Prep commit for migrating "unavailable" user status feature to
"invisible" user presence feature.
To allow `custom_profile_field` to display in user profile popover,
added new boolean field "display_in_profile_summary" in its model class.
In `custom_profile_fields.py`, functions are edited as per conditions,
like currently we can display max 2 `custom_profile_fields` except
`LONG_TEXT` and `USER` type fields.
Default external account custom profile fields made updatable for only
this new field, as previous they were not updatable.
Fixes part of: #21215
Anders Kaseorg
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Sahil Batra
Zixuan James Li
Mateusz Mandera
Tim Abbott
Julia Bichler
Kartik Srivastava
Lauryn Menard
yogesh sirsat