With webpack, variables declared in each file are already file-local
(Global variables need to be explicitly exported), so these IIFEs are
no longer needed.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
This changes the way django_to_ldap_username works to make sure the ldap
username it returns actually has a corresponding ldap entry and raise an
exception if that's not possible. It seems to be a more sound approach
than just having it return its best guess - which was the case so far.
Now there is a guarantee that what it returns is the username of an
actual ldap user.
This allows communicating to the registration flow when the email being
registered doesn't belong to ldap, which then will proceed to register
it via the normal email backend flow - finally fixing the bug where you
couldn't register a non-ldap email even with the email backend enabled.
These changes to the behavior of django_to_ldap_username require small
refactorings in a couple of other functions that call it, as well as
adapting some tests to these changes. Finally, additional tests are
added for the above-mentioned registration flow behavior and some
related corner-cases.
This feels a bit more semantically appropriate: it more clearly says
"here's some information: there is no (relevant) recipient", rather
than "no information available". (Both `null` and `undefined` in JS
can have either meaning, but `undefined` especially commonly means
the latter.)
Concretely, it ensures a bit more explicitness where the value
originates: a bare `return;` becomes `return null;`, reflecting the
fact that it is returning a quite informative value.
Also make the implementation more explicit about what's expected here,
replacing truthiness tests with `!== null`. (A bit more idiomatic
would be `!= null`, which is equivalent when the value is well-typed
and a bit more robust to ill-typing bugs. But lint complains about
that version.)
It'd already been the case for some while that calling `stop` had the
same effect as calling `update` (previously `handle_text_input`) with
a falsy recipient. With the API changes in the previous few commits,
this becomes quite natural to make explicit in the API.
This was named after when it gets called from the UI, rather than
after what it can be expected to do.
Naming it after what it's meant to do -- and giving a summary line to
expand on that -- provides a more helpful semantic idea for reasoning
about the function. Doubly so for using the function in a different
client with its own UI, like the mobile app.
The main motivation for this change is to simplify this interface
and make it easier to reason about.
The case where it affects the behavior is when
is_valid_conversation() returns false, while current_recipient
and get_recipient() agree on some truthy value.
This means the message-content textarea is empty -- in fact the
user just cleared it, because we got here from an input event on
it -- but the compose box is still open to some PM thread that we
have a typing notification still outstanding for.
The old behavior is that in this situation we would ignore the
fact that the content was empty, and go ahead and prolong the
typing notification, by updating our timer and possibly sending a
"still typing" notice.
This contrasts with the behavior (both old and new) in the case
where the content is empty and we *don't* already have an
outstanding typing notification, or we have one to some other
thread. In that case, we cancel any existing notification and
don't start a new one, exactly as if `stop` were called
(e.g. because the user closed the compose box.)
The new behavior is that we always treat clearing the input as
"stopped typing": not only in those cases where we already did,
but also in the case where we still have the same recipients.
(Which seems like probably the common case.)
That seems like the preferable behavior; indeed it's hard to see
the point of the "compose_empty" logic if restricted to the other
cases. It also makes the interface simpler.
Those two properties don't seem like a coincidence, either: the
complicated interface made it difficult to unpack exactly what
logic we actually had, which made it easy for surprising wrinkles
to hang out indefinitely.
All these cases are meant to simulate having a user actually typing a
message to some actual recipients, so the `conversation_is_valid`
parameter would be true.
We make this change so that in an upcoming change that eliminates this
parameter, the adjustments to the test cases can be highly regular and
we don't have to introduce a new wrinkle to correspond to these values
being false.
Returning true from this function means we go on to send, or extend
the lifetime of, a typing notification; returning false means we don't.
It's hard to see why having a partially-entered name in the recipient
box should mean we're *more* inclined to send a typing notification to
the set of recipients that are already entered; if anything, it seems
like it should make us *less* inclined to do so. So we're better off
without this conditional.
The conditional was introduced in commit 72295e94b, as part of a
conversion from user emails to user IDs; there, it seems to replace a
condition that went in the opposite direction, returning *false* if
there were any invalid emails in the recipient box. So perhaps it's
just inverted.
Moreover, the (re-)inverted version would also be wrong: if the user
is typing a PM addressed to some users, and they hit send, the message
will go to those users whether or not they have any unconverted text
in the recipients box. So the typing notifications should too.
The real purpose these two callbacks serve is exactly what an ordinary
parameter is perfect for:
* Each has just one call site, at the top of the function.
* They're not done for side effects; the point is what they return.
* The function doesn't pass them any arguments of its own, or
otherwise express any internal knowledge that doesn't just as
properly belong to its caller.
So, push the calls to these callbacks up into the function's caller,
and pass in the data they return instead.
This greatly simplifies the interface of `handle_text_input` and of
`typing_status` in general.
This is intended as a pure refactor, making the data flow clearer in
preparation for further changes. In particular, this makes it
manifest that the calls to `get_recipient` and `is_valid_conversation`
don't depend on anything else that has happened during the call to
`handle_text_input`.
This is indeed a pure refactor because
* is_valid_conversation itself has no side effects, either in the
implementation in typing.js or in any reasonable implementation,
so calling it sooner doesn't affect anything else;
* if we do reach it, the only potentially-side-effecting code it's
moving before is a call to `stop_last_notification`, and that in
turn (with the existing, or any reasonable, implementation of
`notify_server_stop`) has no effect on the data consulted by
the implementation of `is_valid_conversation`.
Apparently deferring our own Bootstrap (commit
f1ecd3c18b, #13164) means that this
surprise copy of Bootstrap 2.3.2 also needs to be deferred. What is
this even doing here.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
This has been a spurious alert for a long time.
It's unclear that this check is useful at all, but if it spikes
dramatically above what's normal, there's perhaps still utility in
being alerted.
Instead of mocking the _LDAPUser class, these tests can now take
advantage of the test directory that other ldap are using. After these
changes, test_query_email_attr also verifies that query_ldap can
successfully be used to query by user email, if email search is
configured.
Fixes#11878
Instead of a confusing mix of django_auth_backed applying
ldap_to_django_username in its internals for one part of the
translation, and then custom logic for grabbing it from the email
attribute of the ldapuser in ZulipLDAPAuthBackend.get_or_build_user
for the second part of the translation,
we put all the logic in a single function user_email_from_ldapuser
which will be used by get_or_build of both ZulipLDAPUserPopulator and
ZulipLDAPAuthBackend.
This, building on the previous commits with the email search feature,
fixes the ldap sync bug from issue #11878.
If we can get upstream django-auth-ldap to merge
https://github.com/django-auth-ldap/django-auth-ldap/pull/154, we'll
be able to go back to using the version of ldap_to_django_username
that accepts a _LDAPUser object.
With this, django_to_ldap_username can take an email and find the ldap
username of the ldap user who has this email - if email search is
configured.
This allows successful authenticate() with ldap email and ldap password,
instead of ldap username. This is especially useful because when
a user wants to fetch their api key, the server attempts authenticate
with user_profile.email - and this used to fail if the user was an ldap
user (because the ldap username was required to authenticate
succesfully). See issue #9277.
This fixes a collection of bugs surrounding LDAP configurations A and
C (i.e. LDAP_APPEND_DOMAIN=None) with EmailAuthBackend also enabled.
The core problem was that our desired security model in that setting
of requiring LDAP authentication for accounts managed by LDAP was not
implementable without a way to
Now admins can configure an LDAPSearch query that will find if there
are users in LDAP that have the email address and
email_belongs_to_ldap() will take advantage of that - no longer
returning True in response to all requests and thus blocking email
backend authentication.
In the documentation, we describe this as mandatory configuration for
users (and likely will make it so soon in the code) because the
failure modes for this not being configured are confusing.
But making that change is pending work to improve the relevant error
messages.
Fixes#11715.
Users generally don't expect wildcard mentions in muted streams and
topics to be treated as a mention, either for the purposes of desktop
notifications or the unread mention counts.
This fixes the unread mention counts part of the issue.
Fixes part of #13073.
The value of realm attribute in confirmation object used to be empty
before. We are not currently using the realm attribute of reactivation
links anywhere. The value of realm stored in content_object is currently
used.
We currently have code to calculate the value of realm_icon_url,
admin_emails and default_discount in two diffrent places. With
the addition of showing confirmation links it would become three.
The easiest way to deduplicate the code and make the view cleaner
is by doing the calculations in template. Alternatively one can
write a function that takes users, realms and confirmations as
arguments and sets the value of realm_icon_url, admin_emails and
default_discount appropriately in realm object according to the
type of the confirmation. But that seems more messy than passing
the functions directly to template approach.
Most of the failures were due to parameters that are not intended to
be used by third-party code, so the correct fix for those was the set
intentionally_undocumented=True.
Fixes#12969.
When email address visibility is set to everyone, there is no change in
behavior, but when it is set to "admins-only", we don't show any email
in user profile modal (just like popovers) for everyone but admins.
When email address visibility is set to everyone, there is no change in
behavior, but when it is set to "admins-only", we don't show any email
in popovers for everyone but admins.
It should be azuread-oauth2-wrapper, as the name of the corresponding
backend is 'azuread-oauth2'. Without the correct name, the icon isn't
showing on the "Log in with AzureAD" button.
MigrationsTestCase is intentionally omitted from this, since migrations
tests are different in their nature and so whatever setUp()
ZulipTestCase may do in the future, MigrationsTestCase may not
necessarily want to replicate.
Anders Kaseorg
Jan Koscisz
Mateusz Mandera
Greg Price
Tim Abbott
Hemanth V. Alluri
David Rosa
Rohitt Vashishtha
Vishnu KS
Rishi Gupta
chgl
Pragati Agrawal