Tweaked by tabbott to move changes from the next commit that are
required for this to pass tests into this commit.
Note that this exports a few items that were not previously exported.
There's one migration required by this release:
* queue_processors: Stop passing state_handler to handle_message.
state_handler is now a property of bot_handler and thus, does
not need to be passed to bot_handler.handle_message().
The commit responsible is:
2a74ad11c5
This completes the last commit's work to fix CVE-2017-0910, applying
to any invite links already created before the fix was deployed. With
this change, all new-user registrations must match an explicit realm
in the PreregistrationUser row, except when creating a new realm.
[greg: rewrote commit message]
We would allow a user with a valid invitation for one realm to use it
on a different realm instead. On a server with multiple realms, an
authorized user of one realm could use this (by sending invites to
other email addresses they control) to create accounts on other
realms. (CVE-2017-0910)
With this commit, when sending an invitation, we record the inviting
user's realm on the PreregistrationUser row; and when registering a
user, we check that the PregistrationUser realm matches the realm the
user is trying to register on. This resolves CVE-2017-0910 for
newly-sent invitations; the next commit completes the fix.
[greg: rewrote commit message]
This fixes some subtle JavaScript exceptions we've been getting in
zulipchat.com, caused by the system bot realm there not being "zulip"
interacting with get_cross_realm_users.
This should help protect us from future issues with the way that
`bulk_get_users` does caching.
It's likely that we'll want to further restructure `bulk_get_users` to
not have this base_query code path altogether (since it's kinda
buggy), but I'm going to defer that for a time when we have another
user.
The previous implementation had a subtle caching bug: because it was
sharing its cache with the `get_user_profile_by_email` cache, if a
user happened to have an email in that cache, we'd return it, even
though that user didn't match `base_query`.
This causes `get_cross_realm_users` to no longer have a problematic
caching bug.
Hides URL if the message content == image url so that sending gifs or
images feels less cluttered. Uses the url_to_a() function to generate
the expected url string for matching.
Fixes#7324.
Appends "Test: " text to some tests to make changes to the image preview
rendering. In the future, if the message is only a link to an image,
the link will be hidden.
This change does a few things:
* I use "early return" to make the code a bit flatter
and easier to comment.
* I added more comments.
* I removed some unneeded passing of `invite_only` into
the template.
We include ERROR_BOT in this set, even though it's not technically
cross-realm (it just lives in the admin realm).
This code path does not correctly handle emails that correspond to
multiple accounts (because `get_system_bot` does not). Since it's
intended to only be used by system bots, we add an appropriate
assertion to ensure it is only used for system bots.
This was causing problems, because internal_send_message assumes that
there is a unique user (across all realms) with the given email
address (which is sorta required to support cross-realm bot messages
the way it does).
With this change, it now, in practice, only sends cross-realm bot
messages.
We now ignore payloads where payload['push']['changes'] is empty,
because an empty push doesn't really convey any useful information.
I couldn't find a way to replicate the action that would generate
such a payload, so I took one of our existing payloads and editted
out payload['push']['changes'] myself, so this payload is not
authentic.
Previously, this was a ValidationError, but that doesn't really make
sense, since this condition reflects an actual bug in the code.
Because this happened to be our only test coverage the ValidationError
catch on line 84 of registration.py, we add nocoverage there for now.
I probably should have just done this in the original implementation;
there's only a small downside in the form of an extra database query
when trying to authenticate a user who doesn't exist.