This commit fixes the bug where the "topic unresolved" notification
is wrongly triggered when moving a message between a resolved and
unresolved topic, except for when the topics have the same name.
To resolve this issue, the commit ensures that resolved/unresolved
notifications are not sent if a message has been moved to a new
topic. This is achieved by comparing the names of the old and new
topics without considering the "resolved prefix".
The commit also accounts for the scenario where `new_topic_name`
has been truncated, indicating that it was resolved and the name
had to change to accommodate the "resolved prefix".
This solution does not try to specially handle the possible case that
a stream has two topics with the same name, even if one is resolved
and another unresolved.
Fixes#29007.
This commit updates the code so that only the moved notification is
triggered when moving a message between a resolved and unresolved
topic in different streams or when moving a topic itself.
This change takes place even when both stream change and resolve
or unresolve a topic takes place in the same API request, as we
now consider it only a move operation.
This fixes a case where a message is moved between topics that
have the same name, but one resolved and another unresolved and
in different streams. Previously a resolved or unresolved
notification would also be sent. Now, this will not happen,
ensuring only the move operation is notified.
Fixes part of #29007.
Currently we send a notification to the topic if it has been resolved
or unresolved even if there is an immediate event of resolving and
then unresolving or vice-versa. This adds a setting of
RESOLVE_TOPIC_UNDO_GRACE_PERIOD_SECONDS under which if a topic has
been unresolved after being resolved immediately and the last message
was the notification of resolving, then delete the last message and
don't send a new notification and vice-versa.
We use the new message.type field to precisely identify relevant
messages.
Fixes#19181.
Co-authored-by: Mateusz Mandera <mateusz.mandera@zulip.com>
Earlier, we were using 'send_event' in 'do_update_message'
which can lead to a situation where we enqueue events but
the transaction fails at a later stage.
Events should not be sent until we know we're not rolling back.
Earlier, we were using 'send_event' which can lead to a situation
where we enqueue events but the transaction fails at a later stage.
Events should not be sent until we know we're not rolling back.
Updates various areas of the backend code that generate
JsonableErrors with translated strings to use channel
instead of stream.
Part of stream to channel rename project.
A user who was no longer subscribed to a private stream kept their
UserMessage row for a message sent while they were in it; this is
expected. However, they _also_ kept that row even if the message was
moved to a different private stream that they were also not subscribed
to. This violates the invariant that users without subscriptions
never have UserMessage rows.
This `if new_stream is not None` block was improperly indented,
causing it to only run if the propagation mode was not `change_one`.
Since the block controlled creation and deletion of UserMessage rows,
this led to messages being improperly still visible to members of the
old stream if they were being moved from public to private streams.
Clients also failed to receive `delete_message` events, so the
messages remained visible in their feeds until they reloaded the
application.
Rather than pass around a list of message objects in-memory, we
instead keep the same constructed QuerySet which includes the later
propagated messages (if any), and use that same query to pick out
affected Attachment objects, rather than limiting to the set of ids.
This is not necessarily a win -- the list of message-ids *may* be very
long, and thus the query may be more concise, easier to send to
PostgreSQL, and faster for PostgreSQL to parse. However, the list of
ids is almost certainly better-indexed.
After processing the move, the QuerySet must be re-defined as a search
of ids (and possibly a very long list of such), since there is no
other way which is guaranteed to correctly single out the moved
messages. At this point, it is mostly equivalent to the list of
Message objects, and certainly takes no less memory.
This applies access restrictions in SQL, so that individual messages
do not need to be walked one-by-one. It only functions for stream
messages.
Use of this method significantly speeds up checks if we moved "all
visible messages" in a topic, since we no longer need to walk every
remaining message in the old topic to determine that at least one was
visible to the user. Similarly, it significantly speeds up merging
into existing topics, since it no longer must walk every message in
the new topic to determine if the user could see at least one.
Finally, it unlocks the ability to bulk-update only messages the user
has access to, in a single query (see subsequent commit).
This is a preparatory commit that refactors the check_update_message
method to extract the checks containing whether a user can edit the
message or not into a separate method -validate_message_content_edit,
so that it can be re used later.
This is preparatory work towards adding a Topic model.
We plan to use the local variable name as 'topic' for
the Topic model objects.
Currently, we use *topic as the local variable name for
topic names.
We rename local variables of the form *topic to *topic_name
so that we don't need to think about type collisions in
individual code paths where we might want to talk about both
Topic objects and strings for the topic name.
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.
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.
We do not want to access realm from "sender" field so that
we do not need to pass "sender__realm" argument to
select_related call when querying messages. We can instead
pass realm as argument to wildcard_mention_allowed.
We can directly get the realm object from Message object now
and there is no need to get the realm object from "sender"
field of Message object.
After this change, we would not need to fetch "sender__realm"
field using "select_related" and instead only passing "realm"
to select_related when querying Message objects would be enough.
This commit also updates a couple of cases to directly access
realm ID from message object and not message.sender. Although
we have fetched sender object already, so accessing realm_id
from message directly or from message.sender should not matter,
but we can be consistent to directly get realm from Message
object whenever possible.
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 renames the keyword 'pm' to 'dm' in the
'pm_mention_email_disabled_user_ids' and
'pm_mention_push_disabled_user_ids' attributes of the
'RecipientInfoResult' dataclass.
'pm' and 'dm' are the acronyms for 'private message' and
'direct message' respectively.
It includes 'TODO/compatibility' code to support the old format
fields in the tornado queues during the Zulip server upgrades.
Fundamentally, we should take a write lock on the message, check its
validity for a change, and then make and commit that change.
Previously, `check_update_message` did not operate in a transaction,
but `do_update_message` did -- which led to the ordering:
- `check_update_message` reads Message, not in a transaction
- `check_update_message` verifies properties of the Message
- `do_update_message` starts a transaction
- `do_update_message` takes a read lock on UserMessage
- `do_update_message` writes on UserMessage
- `do_update_message` writes Message
- `do_update_message` commits
This leads to race conditions, where the `check_update_message` may
have verified based on stale data, and `do_update_message` may
improperly overwrite it; as well as deadlocks, where
other (properly-written) codepaths take a write lock on Message
_before_ updating UserMessage, and thus deadlock with
`do_update_message`.
Change `check_update_message` to open a transaction, and take the
write lock when first accessing the Message row. We update the
comment above `do_update_message` to clarify this expectation.
The new ordering is thus:
- `check_update_message` starts a transaction
- `check_update_message` takes a write lock on Message
- `check_update_message` verifies properties of the Message
- `do_update_message` writes on UserMessage
- `do_update_message` writes Message
- `check_update_message` commits
This commit completes the notifications part of the @topic
wildcard mention feature.
Notifications are sent to the topic participants for the
@topic wildcard mention.
Tim Abbott
evykassirer
Alex Vandiver
Vector73
Anders Kaseorg
Pedro Almeida
Gaurav Pandey
Prakhar Pratyush
Lauryn Menard
roanster007
Prakhar Pratyush
Sahil Batra
Mateusz Mandera