We now can send an implied matrix of user/stream tuples
for peer_add and peer_remove events.
The client code basically does this:
for stream_id in event['stream_ids']:
for user_id in event['user_ids']:
update_sub(stream_id, user_id)
We used to send individual events, which gets real
expensive when you are creating new streams. For
the case of copy-to-stream case, we should see
events go from U to 1, where U is the number of users
added.
Note that we don't yet fully optimize the potential
of this schema. For adding a new user with lots
of default streams, we still send S peer_add events.
And if you subscribe a bunch of users to a bunch of
private streams, we only go from U * S to S; we can't
optimize it down to one event easily.
All the fields of a stream's recipient object can
be inferred from the Stream, so we just make a local
object. Django will create a Message object without
checking that the child Recipient object has been
saved. If that behavior changes in some upgrade,
we should see some pretty obvious symptom, including
query counts changing.
Tweaked by tabbott to add a longer explanatory comment, and delete a
useless old comment.
This saves us a query for edge cases like when
you try to unsubscribe from a public stream
that you have already unsubscribed from.
But this is mostly to prep for upcoming
optimizations.
That class is an artifact of when Stream
didn't have recipient_id. Now it's simpler
to deal with stream subscriptions.
We also save a query during page load (and
other places where we get subscriber
info).
We already trust ids that are put on our queue
for deferred work. For example, see the code for
"mark_stream_messages_as_read_for_everyone"
We now pass stream_recipient_id when we queue
up work for do_mark_stream_messages_as_read.
This generally saves about 3 queries per
user when we unsubscribe them from a stream.
We get two speedups:
* The query to get existing subscribers only
gets the two fields we need. We no longer
need all the overhead of user_profile
and recipient data being returned in the
query.
* We avoid Django making extra hops to the
database to get user info.
We replace get_peer_user_ids_for_stream_change
with two bulk functions to get peers and/or
subscribers.
Note that we have three codepaths that care about
peers:
subscribing existing users:
we need to tell peers about new subscribers
we need to tell subscribed user about old subscribers
unsubscribing existing users:
we only need to tell peers who unsubscribed
subscribing new user:
we only need to tell peers about the new user
(right now we generate send_event
calls to tell the new user about existing
subscribers, but this is a waste
of effort that we will fix soon)
The two bulk functions are this:
bulk_get_subscriber_peer_info
bulk_get_peers
They have some overlap in the implementation,
but there are some nuanced differences that are
described in the comments.
Looking up peers/subscribers in bulk leads to some
nice optimizations.
We will save some memchached traffic if you are
subscribing to multiple public streams.
We will save a query in the remove-subscriber
case if you are only dealing with private streams.
We used to send occupy/vacate events when
either the first person entered a stream
or the last person exited.
It appears that our two main apps have never
looked at these events. Instead, it's
generally the case that clients handle
events related to stream creation/deactivation
and subscribe/unsubscribe.
Note that we removed the apply_events code
related to these events. This doesn't affect
the webapp, because the webapp doesn't care
about the "streams" field in do_events_register.
There is a theoretical situation where a
third party client could be the victim of
a race where the "streams" data includes
a stream where the last subscriber has left.
I suspect in most of those situations it
will be harmless, or possibly even helpful
to the extent that they'll learn about
streams that are in a "quasi" state where
they're activated but not occupied.
We could try to patch apply_event to
detect when subscriptions get added
or removed. Or we could just make the
"streams" piece of do_events_register
not care about occupy/vacate semantics.
I favor the latter, since it might
actually be what users what, and it will
also simplify the code and improve
performance.
This is a more thorough test of adding multiple
streams for multiple users, including streams
that users have already subscribed to.
The extra queries here are due to the fact
that we call `principal_to_user_profile` in
a loop in the view. So that's an example
of O(N) overhead. We may be able to bulk-fetch
these users eventually.
This is a pure extraction, except that I remove a
redundant check that `len(principals) > 0`. Whenever
that value is false, then `new_subscriptions` will
only have one possible entry, which is the current
user, and we skip that in the loop.
We no longer do O(N) queries to get existing streams.
This is a somewhat contrived use case--generally, we
are not trying to re-subscribe a user to several
streams. Still, we want to avoid this.
This commit also makes `test_bulk_subscribe_many`
do more work, and the change to the test helped
me discover this bug.
If a user asks to be subscribed to a stream
that they are already subscribed to, then
that stream won't be in new_stream_user_ids,
and we won't need to send an event for it.
This change makes that happen more automatically.
I think it's important that the callers understand
that bulk_add_subscriptions assumes all streams
are being created within a single realm, so I make
it an explicit parameter.
This may be overkill--I would also be happy if we
just included the assertions from this commit.
The query to finds and marks all unread UserMessages in the stream as read
can be quite expensive, so we'll move that work to the deferred_work
queue and split it into batches.
Fixes#15770.
The new Stream administrator role is allowed to manage a stream they
administer, including:
* Setting properties like name, description, privacy and post-policy.
* Removing subscribers
* Deactivating the stream
The access_stream_for_delete_or_update is modified and is used only
to get objects from database and further checks for administrative
rights is done by check_stream_access_for_delete_or_update.
We have also added a new exception class StreamAdministratorRequired.
This commit modifies the /streams endpoint so that the web-public
streams are included in the default list of streams that users
have access to.
This is part of PR #14638 that aims to allow guest users to
browse and subscribe themselves to web public streams.
Modifies filter_stream_authorization so that web-public streams are
added in the list of authorized streams that a guest user can
subscribe.
This commit is part of PR #14638 that aims to allow guest users
to browse and subscribe to web-public streams.
In this commit, we grant guest users access to stream history,
send message and common stream data of web-public streams.
This is part of PR #14638 that aims to allow guest users to
browse and subscribe to web-public streams.
This modification allows guest users to have access to web-public
streams subscribers, even if they aren't subscribed or never
subscribed to that stream.
This commit is part of PR #14638 that aims to allow guest users to
browser and subscribe to web-public streams.
Now, gather_subscriptions include web-public streams in the 3 sets
of streams that it returns, subscribed, unsubscribed and never
subscribed.
This is part of PR #14638 that aims to allow guest users to browse and
subscribe to web-public streams.
Added new Event Type in AbstractRealmAuditLog STREAM_CREATED.
Since we finally create streams in create_stream_if_needed function
in zerver/lib/streams.py so logged realm_audit there.
Passed acting_user when create_stream_if_needed or ensure_stream
function is called.
Added tests in test_audit_log.
According to @showell:
> All the slow decorators can die. That was a failed experiment of
> mine from 2014 days. I have meaning to kill them for a couple years
> now. I wrote this with the best of intentions, but I believe it's
> now just cruft. We never made a "fast" mode, for one. And we kept
> writing more and more slow tests, haha.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
We assert that the post was successful, to give
more immediate feedback for tests that don't
bother to check the return value and may be
implicitly assuming this method just works in
all cases.
And we also make it more convenient for tests
that are happy-path tests--they don't have to
do the assertion themselves. (And they're still
free to do deeper checks on the json.)
We opt out with allow_fail=True. We probably want
a more direct API eventually for tests that are
clearly trying to test the failure path for
subscribing to streams.
It's possible that a couple tests here that I added
allow_fail=True to just have flawed data setup--
I don't have time to investigate all cases, but
hopefully they will at least stand out more.
Two things were broken here:
* we were using name(s) instead of id(s)
* we were always sending lists that only
had one element
Now we just send "stream_id" instead of "subscriptions".
If anything, we should start sending a list of users
instead of a list of streams. For example, see
the code below:
if peer_user_ids:
for new_user_id in new_user_ids:
event = dict(type="subscription", op="peer_add",
stream_id=stream.id,
user_id=new_user_id)
send_event(realm, event, peer_user_ids)
Note that this only affects the webapp, as mobile/ZT
don't use this.
This commit adds backend support for setting message_retention_days
while creating streams and updating it for an existing stream. We only
allow organization owners to set/update it for a stream.
'message_retention_days' field for a stream existed previously also, but
there was no way to set it while creating streams or update it for an
exisiting streams using any endpoint.
Steve Howell
Anders Kaseorg
Mateusz Mandera
sahil839
Clara Dantas
Mohit Gupta
arpit551
Vishnu KS
Pragati Agrawal
Tim Abbott