9ac55a8cf6 introduced support for
batch updates to stories. However, that commit didn't skip label
removals, as we already do in non-batch story payloads. This led
to an exception for batch story update payloads where labels were
removed but none were added.
maybe_send_batched_emails handles batches of emails from different
users at once; as it processes each user's batch, it enqueues messages
onto the `email_senders` queue. If `handle_missedmessage_emails`
raises an exception when processing a single user's email, no events
are marked as handled -- including those that were already handled and
enqueued onto `email_senders`. This results in an increasing number
of users being sent repeated emails about the same missed messages.
Catch and log any exceptions when handling an individual user's
events. This guarantees forward progress, and that notifications are
sent at-most-once, not at-least-once.
This commit indicates that the realm_message_retention_days field can have
a special value, similar to its stream counterpart, and also explains how
the special value changed over different server versions.
With an extension from tabbott to double-enter the changelog entry.
Related discussion: https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/378-api-design/topic/realm_message_retention_days
The ability to use multiple ports has been removed a long time ago.
And the "optional" note in the help message is in fact incorrect
since `addrport` being `None` is not supported.
We do not allow any user to edit the system user groups (including
renaming, deleting, adding or removing members, etc.) from the
API. These user groups will change only by the code when a new
user is added or role of a user is changed.
This is implemented by rejecting access_user_group_by_id always
except the case when it is use to get the user group for sending
email and push notifications, as we would need to send notifications
to the mentioned user group.
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>
The auth attempt rate limit is quite low (on purpose), so this can be a
common scenario where a user asks their admin to reset the limit instead
of waiting. We should provide a tool for administrators to handle such
requests without fiddling around with code in manage.py shell.
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.
Mateusz Mandera
Eeshan Garg
Alex Vandiver
Zeeshan
Vishnu KS
PIG208
Sahil Batra
Anders Kaseorg
Suyash Vardhan Mathur
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas