This commit adds code to not include original details of senders like
name, email and avatar url in the message objects sent through events
and in the response of endpoint used to fetch messages.
This is the last major commit for the project to add support for
limiting guest access to an entire organization.
Fixes#10970.
Now, the topic wildcard mention follows the following
rules:
* If the topic has less than 15 participants , anyone
can use @ topic mentions.
* For more than 15, the org setting 'wildcard_mention_policy'
determines who can use @ topic mentions.
Earlier, topic wildcard mentions followed the same restriction
as stream wildcard mentions, which was incorrect.
Fixes part of #27700.
Rename the existing 'wildcard_mentioned' flag to
'stream_wildcard_mentioned'.
The 'wildcard_mentioned' flag is deprecated and exists for
backwards compatibility.
We have two separate flags for stream and topic wildcard mentions,
i.e., 'stream_wildcard_mentioned' and 'topic_wildcard_mentioned',
respectively.
* stream wildcard mentions: `@all`, `@everyone`, and `@stream`
* topic wildcard mentions: `@topic`
The `wildcard_mentioned` flag is included in the events and
API response if either `stream_wildcard_mentioned` or
`topic_wildcard_mentioned` is set.
Earlier, the 'wildcard_mentioned' flag was set for both the
stream and topic wildcard mentions.
Now, the 'topic_wildcard_mentioned' flag is set for topic
wildcard mentions, and the 'wildcard_mentioned' flag is set for
stream wildcard mentions.
We will rename the 'wildcard_mentioned' flag to
'stream_wildcard_mentioned' in a later commit.
This commit moves constants for system group names to a new
"SystemGroups" class so that we can use these group names
in multiple classes in models.py without worrying about the
order of defining them.
This commit adds support to allow bot-owners to delete messages
sent by their bots if they are allowed to delete their own messages
as per "delete_own_message_policy" setting and the message delete
time limit has not passed.
Earlier, when we used 'self.send_message()' in the backend tests,
the sent message was not marked as read for the sender.
Reason: To set the read flag, we have to check if
'message.sent_by_human()'. It returns False because the
'sending_client' for tests is "test suite" and the 'sent_by_human'
function doesn't enlist the "test suite" client name as a human client.
This commit adds "test suite" to that list.
Also fixes a bug in when apply_unread_message_event was called that
was revealed by this change.
I add a bunch of cute helper methods to make
the test a bit more readable.
And then I make sure to get clean objects,
which precludes the need for our callback
functions to refresh the user objects.
And finally I make sure that our validation
functions don't cause any round trips (assuming
we have fetched objects using a standard
Zulip helper, which example_user ensures.)
Users who used to be subscribed to a private stream and have been
removed from it since retain the ability to edit messages/topics, and
delete messages that they used to have access to, if other relevant
organization permissions allow these actions. For example, a user may be
able to edit or delete their old messages they posted in such a private
stream. An administrator will be able to delete old messages (that they
had access to) from the private stream.
We fix this by fixing the logic in has_message_access (which lies at the
core of our message access checks - access_message() and
bulk_access_messages())
to not rely on only a UserMessage row for checking access but also
verify stream type and subscription status.
Earlier, for topic wildcard mentions, the 'wildcard_mentioned'
flag was set for all the user-messages. (similar to stream wildcard
mention).
The flag should be set for the topic participants only.
The bug was introduced in 4c9d26c.
This commit adds code to pass all the required arguments to
select_related call for Message objects such that only the
required related fields are fetched from the database.
Previously, we did not pass any arguments to select_related,
so all the directly and indirectly related fields were fetched
when many of them were actually not being used and made the
query unnecessarily complex.
This commit updates the code to pass "realm" and "recipient" as
arguments to select_related call in get_stream_by_id_in_realm.
Previously, since there was no arguments, it fetched
can_remove_subscribers_group and the related fields of
"Realm" model as well which were not being used, but
did not fetch "recipient" as it is a nullable field.
This commit completes the notifications part of the @topic
wildcard mention feature.
Notifications are sent to the topic participants for the
@topic wildcard mention.
This prep commit replaces the 'wildcard' keyword in the codebase
with 'stream_wildcard' at some places for better readability, as
we plan to introduce 'topic_wildcards' as a part of the
'@topic mention' project.
Currently, 'wildcards = ["all", "everyone", "stream"]' which is an
alias to mention everyone in the stream, hence better renamed as
'stream_wildcards'.
Eventually, we will have:
'stream_wildcard' as an alias to mention everyone in the stream.
'topic_wildcard' as an alias to mention everyone in the topic.
'wildcard' refers to 'stream_wildcard' and 'topic_wildcard' as a whole.
This commit adds backend code to check whether a user is allowed
to mention a user group while editing a message as per
can_mention_group setting of that group.
Fixes a part of #25927.
django-stubs 4.2.1 gives transaction.on_commit a more accurate type
annotation, but this exposed that mypy can’t handle the lambda default
parameters that we use to recapture loop variables such as
for stream_id in public_stream_ids:
peer_user_ids = …
event = …
transaction.on_commit(
lambda event=event, peer_user_ids=peer_user_ids: send_event(
realm, event, peer_user_ids
)
)
https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/15459
A workaround that mypy accepts is
transaction.on_commit(
(
lambda event, peer_user_ids: lambda: send_event(
realm, event, peer_user_ids
)
)(event, peer_user_ids)
)
But that’s kind of ugly and potentially error-prone, so let’s make a
helper function for this very common pattern.
send_event_on_commit(realm, event, peer_user_ids)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
An implicit coercion from an untyped dict to the TypedDict was hiding
a type error: CapturedQuery.sql was really str, not bytes. We should
always prefer dataclass over TypedDict to prevent such errors.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This commit adds a new test to check how the visibility policy updates
when moving messages to a topic that didn't exist previously.
This test also helps us adding coverage for the code which just
skips setting visibility_policy if there is no need to update the
value because both previous and new value of visibility policy
is INHERIT. The "actions/message_edit.py" file has 100% coverage
now and thus is removed from "not_yet_fully_covered" list.
The code for updating visibility policy values on moving messages
had two bugs.
- There was a typo in elif condition where "user_profile" was being
used instead of "user_profile_with_policy".
This commit fixes the typo.
- It was assumed that there would be no UserTopic rows for target
topic if the target topic didn't exist. But there can be such case
where some messages were sent to that topic and the user muted
the topic. But then the messages in that topic was deleted. In
such case there can be UserTopic rows for a stream-topic pair
that does not exist.
This commit fixes the code to handle such case as well and set
the visibility policy of new topic to what was set for the original
topic. This change simplifies the condition to just check whether
new_visibility_policy is equal to target_topic_visibility_policy
and skip if so, and update the visibility policy otherwise.
Due to this change, we now do not try to mute the already muted
topic if the topic is moved to a topic which didn't exist
previously and thus we modify the existing test to not expect
any INFO logs.
This commit adds tests to cover the case of message editing
not allowed due to allow_message_editing set to False and
the case when there is no limit set when moving all messages
in a topic.
The "actions/message_edit.py" file does not have 100% coverage
still and it will be addressed in the next commit.
This commit updates the logic for migrating user_topic rows
during the move-messages operation when the target topic
already has messages.
Previously, the target_topic's visibility_policy was simply
set to the original_topic's visibility_policy,
and the original_topic's visibility_policy was set to INHERIT.
This commit updates the move-messages code path to determine
the new visibility_policy depending on the visibility policies
of the original and target topics.
The target_topic's visibility_policy is then updated.
The number of db queries has increased by two:
One query corresponds to determining if 'target_topic_has_messages'.
Another query corresponds to 'get_users_with_user_topic_visibility_policy'
to determine 'target_topic_user_profile_to_visibility_policy'.
This commit fixes the comment about number of database queries
when moving message from muted topic to mention clearly about
the number of queries added due to original topic being muted.
We do not include the queries that is executed to check whether
the topic is muted or not, as they will be executed in all cases.
We previously allowed moving messages that have passed the time limit
using "change_all" value for "propagate_mode" parameter. This commit
changes the behavior to not allow moving messages (both stream and
topic edit) that have passed the time limit for non-admin and
non-moderator users.
Previously, editing topic of "(no topic)" messages was allowed
irrespective of time limit or the "edit_topic_policy" setting.
Since we are working in the direction of having "no topic" messages
feel reasonable, this commit changes the code to not consider them
as a special case and topic editing restrictions apply to them as
well now like all other messages.
We still highlight the topic edit icon in recipient bar without
hovering for "no topic" messages, but it is only shown when user
has permission to edit topics.
This commit renames the 'tornado_redirected_to_list' context
manager to 'capture_send_event_calls' to improve readability.
It also refactors the function to yield a list of events
instead of passing in a list data structure as a parameter
and appending events to it.
Improve the Notification Bot by adding a hyperlink to the new location
of a moved single message. The link will make it easier for users to
find the message in its new context.
Fixes#24604.
Previously, there was a stale code that didn't verify
if 'muted_topics' and 'user_topic' events are sent correctly.
This commit updates the test to verify if the expected
users are notified via 'muted_topics' and 'user_topic'
events.
This commit updates the move-topic codepath to perform
bulk database operations on the UserTopic record using
user_profiles for each visibility_policy instead of
previously looping over each user_profile one by one.
This commit refactors 'set_user_topic_visibility_policy_in_database'
to perform bulk database operations and the related changes.
There is an increase in database query count because requests
to delete user_topic rows now take two queries instead of one.
This is required for logging the info for a request to delete
a non-existent user_topic row while performing bulk operations
at the same time.
The overall query count will be lower while performing
bulk operations (multiple user_profiles instead of one).
This commit updates the 'do_update_message' codepath to
update the UserTopic records regardless of visibility policy
during the "move-topic" operation.
This is required before offering new visibility policies
in the UI.
Previously, UserTopic records were moved or deleted only
for objects with a MUTED visibility policy.
Fixes: #24574
This is a prep commit that renames 'set_topic_mutes' and
'topic_is_muted' to 'set_topic_visibility_policy' and
'topic_has_visibility_policy' respectively, and refactors
them to work with any visibility_policy, not only MUTED.
Previously, when a user moves a message to another topic, the Notification
bot will post a message saying "This topic was moved here from..." This is
confusing when the topic already contains messages. The changes aims to make
the messages more clear by changing the logic for the Notification bot. When
there is already messages in the topic, the bot will post "A message was
moved here from..." or "N messages were moved here from...". The bot will
post "This topic was moved here from (somewhere) by (someone)." when the
topic is empty.
Fixes#23267.
This commit updates 'set_user_topic_visibility_policy_in_database'
to not raise an error when deleting a UserTopic row and the user
doesn't have a visibility_policy for the topic yet, or when setting
the visibility_policy to its current value.
Also, it includes the changes to not send unnecessary events
in such cases.
In order to support different types of topic visibility policies,
this renames 'add_topic_mute' to
'set_user_topic_visibility_policy_in_database'
and refactors it to accept a parameter 'visibility_policy'.
Create a corresponding UserTopic row for any visibility policy,
not just muting topics.
When a UserTopic row for (user_profile, stream, topic, recipient_id)
exists already, it updates the row with the new visibility_policy.
In the event of a duplicate request, raises a JsonableError.
i.e., new_visibility_policy == existing_visibility_policy.
There is an increase in the database query count in the message-edit
code path.
Reason:
Earlier, 'add_topic_mute' used 'bulk_create' which either
creates or raises IntegrityError -- 1 query.
Now, 'set_user_topic_visibility_policy' uses get_or_create
-- 2 queries in the case of creating new row.
We can't use the previous approach, because now we have to
handle the case of updating the visibility_policy too.
Also, using bulk_* for a single row is not the correct way.
Co-authored-by: Kartik Srivastava <kaushiksri0908@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Prakhar Pratyush <prakhar841301@gmail.com>
This commit adds time restriction on moving messages between streams
using the move_messages_between_streams_limit_seconds setting in the
backend. There is no time limit for admins and moderators.
We now use the newly added move_messages_within_stream_limit_seconds
setting to check for how long the user can edit the topic replacing
the previously used 3-day limit. As it was previously, there is no
time limit for admins and moderators.
When 'resolve|unresolve' and 'move stream' actions occurs in
the same api call, 'This topic was marked as resolved|unresolved'
notification is not sent.
Both 'topic moved' and 'topic resolved' notification should be generated.
This commit updates the logic of when and where to send
'topic resolve|unresolve' notification. Unlike previous logic, notification
may be sent even in the case 'new_stream' is not None.
In general, 'topic resolved|unresolved' notification is sent to
'stream_being_edited'. In this particular case ('new_stream' is not None),
notification is sent to the 'new_stream' after check.
Test case is included.
Fixes: #22973
Anders Kaseorg
Sahil Batra
Prakhar Pratyush
lapaz
Steve Howell
Alex Vandiver
Mateusz Mandera
Prakhar Pratyush
Lauryn Menard
Akarsh Jain
Joelute
Kartik Srivastava