We may revisit this in the future, but similar to is:private, the
current Zulip user experience makes users expect that in the
is:mentioned view, they should really be able to mark messages as
read.
Further, the practice use case for not marking them as read is very
low, since it's rare for someone to have so many mentions that
revisiting the mentions view isn't sufficient to see everything that
needs their attention.
Previously, is_exactly() had already been repalced with can_bucket_by().
This commit removes is_exactly() and replaces its usage in our tests
with can_bucket_by().
For Manage Streams, when we render the subscriptions
template, a significant amount of time is taken
by the "t" helper.
Obviously for the first call, we expect "t" to be
somewhat expensive, but subsuquent calls should be
fast, but i18next seems to have some overhead.
Also, we can save a tiny bit of overhead (marking it
as a safe string) that comes from our helper.
As an aside, are we sure it's ok to mark translations
as safe strings?
To test before and after, use blueslip.timings before
and after this commit. When I tested with about 300
streams, the difference is pretty striking:
without cache: 100ms
with cache: 20ms
This is particularly interesting, since the subscriptions
templates have long strings for things like the SVG-based
checkmarks, but they're not really the bottleneck.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a huge win
elsewhere. In some places we don't call "t", but of
course those might change in the future and benefit from
the cache. And in other places we have smart widgets
that avoid rendering all N objects at one (e.g. buddy
list and list_render).
So this might be too big a hammer to speed up one
screen (albeit a really slow one). It's possible
that we should simply move the i18n.t step **outside**
of certain templates to avoid doing them in a loop.
We now incorporate people.get_message_people() in our
logic for compose/PM typeaheads. This not only gives
users better results in some cases, but it will also
improve performance for large realms in some cases.
We'll use this in two places coming up, so it's
worth extracting, plus I wanted to add the
fairly lengthy comment here. (Tim, feel free
to edit down the comment as you see fit).
This is relatively unobtrusive, and we don't send
anything to the server.
But any user can now enter blueslip.timings in the
console to see a map of how long things take in
milliseconds. We only record one timing per
event label (i.e. the most recent).
It's pretty easy to test this by just clicking
around. For 300 users/streams most things are
fast except for:
- initialize_everything
- manage streams (render_subscriptions)
Both do lots of nontrivial work, although
"manage streams" is a bit surprising, since
we're only measuring how long to build the
HTML from the templates (whereas the real
time is probably browser rendering costs).
This change sets us up to optimize how we
filter users in the admin user settings.
See #13554 for more context on the user
facing issues.
This fix is basically three related things:
- Add filterer options to list_render.
- Add helper method to people.js.
- Use filterer in settings_users.js.
The filter "callback" was only a "callback" in the
most general sense of the word.
It's just a filter predicate that returns a bool.
This is to prepare for another filtering option,
where the caller can filter the whole list
themselves. I haven't figured out what I will name
the new option yet, but I know I want to make the
two options have specific names.
We are already providing callbacks everywhere, so
it would be nice to eliminate some dead code.
This also speeds things up ever so slightly (no
longer type-checking the option every time through
the loop).
We also split out exports.filter to make unit testing
easier. The function seems kinda silly now, being so
small, but I hope to add another filtering option soon.
It's a bit confusing when you read this code to know
where the original list was created. I'm not a huge
fan of the cache scheme here, but it does seem to
work for live updates.
Zulip has had a small use of WebSockets (specifically, for the code
path of sending messages, via the webapp only) since ~2013. We
originally added this use of WebSockets in the hope that the latency
benefits of doing so would allow us to avoid implementing a markdown
local echo; they were not. Further, HTTP/2 may have eliminated the
latency difference we hoped to exploit by using WebSockets in any
case.
While we’d originally imagined using WebSockets for other endpoints,
there was never a good justification for moving more components to the
WebSockets system.
This WebSockets code path had a lot of downsides/complexity,
including:
* The messy hack involving constructing an emulated request object to
hook into doing Django requests.
* The `message_senders` queue processor system, which increases RAM
needs and must be provisioned independently from the rest of the
server).
* A duplicate check_send_receive_time Nagios test specific to
WebSockets.
* The requirement for users to have their firewalls/NATs allow
WebSocket connections, and a setting to disable them for networks
where WebSockets don’t work.
* Dependencies on the SockJS family of libraries, which has at times
been poorly maintained, and periodically throws random JavaScript
exceptions in our production environments without a deep enough
traceback to effectively investigate.
* A total of about 1600 lines of our code related to the feature.
* Increased load on the Tornado system, especially around a Zulip
server restart, and especially for large installations like
zulipchat.com, resulting in extra delay before messages can be sent
again.
As detailed in
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/pull/12862#issuecomment-536152397, it
appears that removing WebSockets moderately increases the time it
takes for the `send_message` API query to return from the server, but
does not significantly change the time between when a message is sent
and when it is received by clients. We don’t understand the reason
for that change (suggesting the possibility of a measurement error),
and even if it is a real change, we consider that potential small
latency regression to be acceptable.
If we later want WebSockets, we’ll likely want to just use Django
Channels.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Currently, if we change stream we see the immediate saving of stream, but
it is more convenient to have "Save" and "Discard" buttons as we use
everywhere else in the organization setting subsystem.
This is a preliminary commit for further commits where we will be using the
newly created function `save_discard_widget_status_handler` in click
handler for changing the notification stream.
This refactors `discard_property_element_changes` and
`check_property_changed` function to move conditional statements of
properties that need to be handled separately. It's a preliminary commit in
the series of using save/discard widget for notification stream setting.
As the part of making notification stream settings to change using
"save/discard" widget instead of immediate saving, we need to access the
stream id which is being selected at the moment.
(This is another preliminary commit in the direction of having
"save/discard" widget show up rather than saving immediately.)
The code for selecting and processing the stream for both types of
notifications is almost the same, so de-duplicated.
For "New stream notifications" and "New user notifications" it is more
intuitive to just use the new system for showing success/saving status
feedback.
This fixes the error where we pass `user_id` of 'string' type as the
argument instead of 'integer' to `exports.get_person_from_user_id` which
further passes `user_id` to InDict.has() function which accepts integer
argument only.
Extracting the function makes it a bit easier to
test and use in a generic way.
Also, I wanted this to live in stream_data, so that
it's easier to find if we change how we model
subscriber data.
Finally, I use _.every to do the subset check
instead of `_.difference`, since _.difference
is actually N-squared:
_.difference = restArguments(function(array, rest) {
rest = flatten(rest, true, true);
return _.filter(array, function(value){
return !_.contains(rest, value);
});
});
And we don't actually want to build a list only
to check that it's zero vs. nonzero length.
We now do this, which short circuits as soon
as it finds any key that is only in sub1:
return _.every(sub1.subscribers.keys(), (key) => {
return sub2_set.has(key);
});
First, there are no more convoluted signals.
We also simplify the parameter to just the "mentioned"
object corresponding to either a user or a broadcast
mention.
For the user group scenario, this has always been dead
code, which you only realized when you got to the comment
at the bottom. Now we actually do nothing.
And I moved the relevant commment to the
the typeahead code (with new wording).
I also moved the is_silent check to the caller. I don't
feel too strongly about that either way. It's kind of silly
to call a function only to give that function an additional
responsibility to worry about. On the other hand, I see
the logic of that function enforcing everything. I went
with the former for now.
Arguably we should have a warning for silent mentions,
since doing a silent mention of somebody not on a stream
is a good indication of a typo. I do understand the use
case, but the user can always ignore the warning. Anyway,
we have decent test coverage on this.
This isn't really an extraction; it's more giving
a name to an anonymous function and moving it to
higher module scope.
We convert this to an ordinary function call, which
allows us to move it out of intialize().
Since there's just one simple parameter now (linked_stream),
we can avoid some error checking.
We also avoid the comment that describes the function,
since it now has a name.
And then one minor tweak is to do the inexpensive
`invite_only` higher in the function. This will be
a nice speedup when you link to really large public
streams.
The unit tests are also a bit easier to read now--less
setup and more explicit names.
This is easier to read and faster, because it
avoids some unnecessary encoding on the pm-with
part, plus just a lot of extra logic that amounts
to just appending the slug.
Performance for this function is relevant because it is used
for every user every time we rerender the right sidebar.
Previously, if you tried to invite a user whose account had been
deactivated, we didn't provide a clear path forward for reactivating
the users, which was confusing.
We fix this by plumbing through to the frontend the information that
there is an existing user account with that email address in this
organization, but that it's deactivated. For administrators, we
provide a link for how to reactivate the user.
Fixes#8144.
Jonathan Cobb
Tim Abbott
Anders Kaseorg
Rohitt Vashishtha
Steve Howell
Pragati Agrawal
Tlazypanda