The hope is that by having a shorter list of initial streams, it'll
avoid some potential confusion confusion about the value of topics.
At the very least, having 5 streams each with 1 topic was not a good
way to introduce Zulip.
This commit minimizes changes to the message content in
`send_initial_realm_messages` to keep the diff readable. Future commits will
reshape the content.
For internal stream messages, most of the time, we have access to
a Stream object. For the few corner cases where we don't, it is a
much cleaner approach to have a separate function that accepts a
stream name than having one multi-option helper that accepts both
names and objects.
If the caller has access to a Stream object, it is wasteful to
query a database for a stream by ID or name. In addition, not
having to go through stream names eliminates various classes of
possible bugs involved with getting a Stream object back.
This adds a new API for sending basic analytics data (number of users,
number of messages sent) from a Zulip server to the Zulip Cloud
central analytics database, which will make it possible for servers to
elect to have their usage numbers counted in published stats on the
size of the Zulip ecosystem.
A key part of this is the new helper, get_user_by_delivery_email. Its
verbose name is important for clarity; it should help avoid blind
copy-pasting of get_user (which we'll also want to rename).
Unfortunately, it requires detailed understanding of the context to
figure out which one to use; each is used in about half of call sites.
Another important note is that this PR doesn't migrate get_user calls
in the tests except where not doing so would cause the tests to fail.
This probably deserves a follow-up refactor to avoid bugs here.
This fixes a lot of spammy output of the form:
2018-11-27 17:46:48.279 INFO [zerver.lib.push_notifications] Sending push notification to user 46
when running populate_db, which is both confusing (since we're not
actually sending push notifications here) and spammy.
Now that we allow multiple users to have registered the same token, we
need to configure calls to unregister tokens to only query the
targeted user_id.
We conveniently were already passing the `user_id` into the push
notification bouncer for the remove API, so no migration for older
Zulip servers is required.
Previously, Zulip did not correctly handle the case of a mobile device
being registered with a push device token being registered for
multiple accounts on the same server (which is a common case on
zulipchat.com). This was because our database `unique` and
`unique_together` indexes incorrectly enforced the token being unique
on a given server, rather than unique for a given user_id.
We fix this gap, and at the same time remove unnecessary (and
incorrectly racey) logic deleting and recreating the tokens in the
appropriate tables.
There's still an open mobile app bug causing repeated re-registrations
in a loop, but this should fix the fact that the relevant mobile bug
causes the server to 500.
Follow-up work that may be of value includes:
* Removing `ios_app_id`, which may not have much purpose.
* Renaming `last_updated` to `data_created`, since that's what it is now.
But none of those are critical to solving the actual bug here.
Fixes#8841.
There are several situations in which we want to create a Customer and
stripe.Customer object before we really have a billing relationship with a
customer. The main one is giving non-profit or educational discounts.
Anders Kaseorg
Tim Abbott
Rishi Gupta
Eeshan Garg
Greg Price
Anders Kaseorg
Vishnu Ks