Moves and generalizes `switch_realm_from_standard_to_plus_plan`
in stripe.py to be a more general function for changing a
CustomerPlan to a new and valid tier, `do_change_plan_to_new_tier`.
Adds a helper function with the previous function name to be used
for the support view and management command for changing a realm
from the Standard plan tier to the Plus plan tier.
This makes it possible for a self-hosted realm administrator to
directly access a logged-page on the push notifications bouncer
service, enabling billing, support contacts, and other administrator
for enterprise customers to be managed without manual setup.
This may happen if there are multiple servers with the same UUID
submitting data (e.g. if they were cloned after initial creation), or
if there is one server, but `./manage.py clear_analytics_tables` was
used to truncate the analytics tables.
In the case of `clear_analytics_tables`, the data submitted likely has
identical historical values with new remote `id` values; preserving
the originally-submitted contemporaneous data is the best option. For
the case of submissions from multiple servers, there is no completely
sensible outcome, so the best we can do is detect the case and move
on.
Since we have a lock on the RemoteZulipServer, we know that no other
inserts are happening, so counting before and after will return the
true number of rows inserted (which `bulk_create` cannot do in the
face of `ignore_conflicts`[^1]). We compare this to the expected
number of new inserted rows to detect dropped duplicates.
[^1]: See https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/30138.
This does not ensure that we do not mix data from multiple servers
sharing a UUID -- if one has more `RemoteRealmCount` rows,
and the other has more `RemoteInstalltionCount` rows, the end result
will still be some rows from each server, across the two tables.
It does ensure that we will not alternate rows between two servers
if both requests are processed at the same time.
It also causes submissions to be all-or-nothing in the event of
integrity errors. This is not necessarily beneficial, as forward
progress is generally useful -- but the integrity errors are resolved
in the subsequent commit.
This applies f299f31340 but for the push bouncer receiving side.
This is particularly important as we start relying on the unique
constraints, via `ON CONFLICT ... IGNORE`, in subsequent commits.
Fixes: #12362.
Add the new model for recording basic information about Realms on remote
server, to go with the other analytics data. Also adds necessary changes
to the bouncer endpoint and the send_analytics_to_push_bouncer()
function to submit such Realm information.
This calculates the largest amount of messages sent within a month for
the last 3 months. The query is targeted for the specific use-case in
this function - for finding the count for a specific server. For
calculating this in bulk for a large number of remote server an
adapted, bulk query will be needed - rather than running this one in a
loop, which would likely be very inefficient.
This parameter appeared here on the function definition,
but because it lacked a `REQ` call it didn't actually connect
to any parameter passed in the HTTP request.
It doesn't make any sense on this endpoint anyway -- presumably
it was copy-pasted from its "register" counterpart -- so just cut it.
We'll need this information in order to properly direct APNs
notifications. Happily, the Zulip server always sends it when
registering an APNs token; and it appears it always has done so
since the commit:
cddee49e7 Add support infrastructure for push notification bouncer service.
back in 2016. So there's no compatibility issue from requiring it.
This missing `REQ` call has meant we just drop this parameter:
even though the remote Zulip server passes it (for all APNs tokens),
we never notice and never store it. Fix that.
So that all child classes of BillingSession generate the same data
structure for customers that are created in Stripe, revise
`get_data_for_stripe_customer` to return a specific dataclass:
StripeCustomerData.
So that `update_or_create_stripe_customer` can work for Customer
objects with either a realm or remote_server, we create an abstract
base class, BillingSession, and implement a child class for the
current implementation of Customer objects with a realm.
Refactoring `update_or_create_stripe_customer` also moves
`create_stripe_customer` and `replace_payment_method` to the
BillingSession class.
Earlier, the 'automatically_follow_topics_policy' and
'automatically_unmute_topics_in_muted_streams_policy' were set
to 'NEVER' for both the test and dev databases.
This commit fixes the incorrect behavior.
Now, we set it to 'NEVER' only for the test-database.
We need the actual default value in our dev database.
We explicitly set it to NEVER for test-database as it skews other
tests by generating extra events and db queries. We have separate
tests with different values to test the intended behavior related
to these settings.
The bug was introduced in 58568a6.
Add an optional `automatic_new_visibility_policy` enum field
in the success response to indicate the new visibility policy
value due to the `automatically_follow_topics_policy` and
`automatically_unmute_topics_in_muted_streams_policy` user settings
during the send message action.
Only present if there is a change in the visibility policy.
This commit adds two user settings, named
* `automatically_follow_topics_policy`
* `automatically_unmute_topics_in_muted_streams_policy`
The settings control the user's preference on which topics they
will automatically 'follow' or 'unmute in muted streams'.
The policies offer four options:
1. Topics I participate in
2. Topics I send a message to
3. Topics I start
4. Never (default)
There is no support for configuring the settings through the UI yet.
There is no reason to have an index on just `realm_id` or `remote_id`,
as those values mean nothing outside of the scope of a specific
`server_id`. Remove those never-used single-column indexes from the
two tables that have them.
By contrast, the pair of `server_id` and `remote_id` is quite useful
and specific -- it is a unique pair, and every POST of statistics from
a remote host requires looking up the highest `remote_id` for a given
`server_id`, which (without this index) is otherwise a quite large
scan.
Add a unique constraint, which (in PostgreSQL) is implemented as a
unique index.
Lauryn Menard
Mateusz Mandera
Alex Vandiver
Tim Abbott
Aman Agrawal
Greg Price
Prakhar Pratyush
Anders Kaseorg
Prakhar Pratyush