This reduces query counts in some cases, since
we no longer need to look up the user again. In
particular, it reduces some noise when we
count queries for O(N)-related tests.
The query count is usually reduced by 2 per
API call. We no longer need to look up Realm
and UserProfile. In most cases we are saving
these lookups for the whole tests, since we
usually already have the `user` objects for
other reasons. In a few places we are simply
moving where that query happens within the
test.
In some places I shorten names like `test_user`
or `user_profile` to just be `user`.
We want a clean codepath for the vast majority
of cases of using api_get/api_post, which now
uses email and which we'll soon convert to
accepting `user` as a parameter.
These apis that take two different types of
values for the same parameter make sweeps
like this kinda painful, and they're pretty
easy to avoid by extracting helpers to do
the actual common tasks. So, for example,
here I still keep a common method to
actually encode the credentials (since
the whole encode/decode business is an
annoying detail that you don't want to fix
in two places):
def encode_credentials(self, identifier: str, api_key: str) -> str:
"""
identifier: Can be an email or a remote server uuid.
"""
credentials = "%s:%s" % (identifier, api_key)
return 'Basic ' + base64.b64encode(credentials.encode('utf-8')).decode('utf-8')
But then the rest of the code has two separate
codepaths.
And for the uuid functions, we no longer have
crufty references to realm. (In fairness, realm
will also go away when we introduce users.)
For the `is_remote_server` helper, I just inlined
it, since it's now only needed in one place, and the
name didn't make total sense anyway, plus it wasn't
a super robust check. In context, it's easier
just to use a comment now to say what we're doing:
# If `role` doesn't look like an email, it might be a uuid.
if settings.ZILENCER_ENABLED and role is not None and '@' not in role:
# do stuff
Instead of trying to set the _requestor_for_logs attribute in all the
relevant places, we try to use request.user when possible (that will be
when it's a UserProfile or RemoteZulipServer as of now). In other
places, we set _requestor_for_logs to avoid manually editing the
request.user attribute, as it should mostly be left for Django to manage
it.
In places where we remove the "request._requestor_for_logs = ..." line,
it is clearly implied by the previous code (or the current surrounding
code) that request.user is of the correct type.
This uses the better, modern, user ID based API for sending messages
internally in the test suite, something that's convenient to do as a
follow-up to the migration to pass UserProfile objects to these
functions.
This commit mostly makes our tests less
noisy, since emails are no longer an important
detail of sending messages (they're not even
really used in the API).
It also sets us up to have more scrutiny
on delivery_email/email in the future
for things that actually matter. (This is
a prep commit for something along those
lines, kind of hard to explain the full
plan.)
We plan to use these records to check and record the schema of Zulip's
events for the purposes of API documentation.
Based on an original messier commit by tabbott.
In theory, a nicer version of this would be able to work directly off
the mypy type system, but this will be good enough for our use case.
This extends our email address visibility settings to deny access to
user email addresses even to organization administrators.
At the moment, they can of course change the setting (which leaves an
audit trail), but in the future only organization owners will be able
to change that setting.
While we're at this, we rewrite the settings_data.js test to cover all
the cases in a more consistent way.
Fixes#14111.
This isn't the only bug in our testing libraries with
EMAIL_ADDRESS_VISIBILITY; but we don't have a lot of tests that need
to deal with that set of settings.
We were using `code` to pass around messages.
The `code` field is designed to be a code, not
a human-readable message.
It's possible that we don't actually need two
flavors of messages for these type of validations,
but I didn't want to change that yet.
We **definitely** don't need to put two types of
message in the exception, so I fix that. Instead,
I just have the caller ask what level of detail
it needs.
I added a non-verbose message for the case of
system bots.
I removed the non-translated version of the message
for deactivated accounts, which didn't have test
coverage and is slightly more prone to leaking
email info that we don't want to leak.
In the prep commits leading up to this, we split
out two new helpers:
validate_email_is_valid
get_errors_for_new_emails
Now when we validate invites we use two separate
loops to filter our emails.
Note that the two extracted functions map to two
of the data structures that used to be handled
in a single loop, and now we break them out:
errors = validate_email_is_valid
skipped = get_errors_for_new_emails
The first loop checks that emails are even valid
to begin with.
The second loop finds out whether emails are already
in use.
The second loop takes advantage of this helper:
get_errors_for_new_emails
The second helper can query all potential new emails
with a single round trip to the database.
This reduces our query count.
The main purpose of this new function is to allow
us to validate emails in bulk, which we don't do
yet (still setting the stage for that).
This is still a speedup, though, since in our
caller we grab only three fields now.
And other than that, we're essentially doing
the same query for the single-email case, just
outside the loop.
We are trying to kill off `validate_email`, so
we no longer call it from these tests.
These tests are already kind of low-level in
nature, so testing the more specific helpers
here should be fine.
Note that we also make the third parameter
to `validate_email` non-optional in this commit,
to preserve 100% coverage. This is really just
refactoring noise--we will soon eliminate the
entire function, but I didn't want to do everything
in a huge commit.
This is a prep commit that will allow us
to more efficiently validate a bunch of
emails in the invite UI.
This commit does not yet change any
behavior or performance.
A secondary goal of this commit is to
prepare us to eliminate some hackiness
related to how we construct
`ValidationError` exceptions.
It preserves some quirks of the prior
implementation:
- the strings we decided to translate
here appear haphazard (and often
get ignored anyway)
- we use `msg` in most codepaths,
but use `code` for invites
Right now we never actually call this with
more than one email, but that will change
soon.
Note that part of the rationale for the inner
method here is to avoid a test coverage bug
with `continue` in loops.
This has two goals:
- sets up a future commit to bulk-validate
emails
- the extracted function is more simple,
since it just has errors, and no codes
or deactivated flags
This commit leaves us in a somewhat funny
intermediate state where we have
`action.validate_email` being a glorified
two-line function with strange parameters,
but subsequent commits will clean this up:
- we will eliminate validate_email
- we will move most of the guts of its
other callee to lib/email_validation.py
To be clear, the code is correct here, just
kinda in an ugly, temporarily-disorganized
intermediate state.
We now use the `get_realm_email_validator()`
helper to build an email validator outside
the loop of emails in our invite list.
This allows us to perform RealmDomain queries
only once per request, instead of once per
email.
Now called:
validate_email_not_already_in_realm
We have a separate validation function that
makes sure that the email fits into a realm's
domain scheme, and we want to avoid naming
confusion here.
Without the fix here, you will get an exception
similar to below if you try to invite one of the
cross realm bots. (The actual exception is
a bit different due to some rebasing on my branch.)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/request.py", line 368, in _wrapped_view_func
return view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/views/invite.py", line 49, in invite_users_backend
do_invite_users(user_profile, invitee_emails, streams, invite_as)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/actions.py", line 5153, in do_invite_users
email_error, email_skipped, deactivated = validate_email(user_profile, email)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/actions.py", line 5069, in validate_email
return None, (error.code), (error.params['deactivated'])
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
Obviously, you shouldn't try to invite a cross
realm bot to your realm, but we want a reasonable
error message.
RESOLUTION:
Populate the `code` parameter for `ValidationError`.
BACKGROUND:
Most callers to `validate_email_for_realm` simply catch
the `ValidationError` and then report a more generic error.
That's also what `do_invite_users` does, but it has the
somewhat convoluted codepath through `validate_email`
that triggers this code:
try:
validate_email_for_realm(user_profile.realm, email)
except ValidationError as error:
return None, (error.code), (error.params['deactivated'])
The way that we're using the `code` parameter for
`ValidationError` feels hacky to me. The intention
behind `code` is to provide a descriptive error to
calling code, and it's not intended for humans, and
it feels strange that we actually translate this in
other places. Here are the Django docs:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/forms/validation/
And then here's an example of us actually translating
a code (not part of this commit, just providing context):
raise ValidationError(_('%s already has an account') %
(email,), code = _("Already has an account."),
params={'deactivated': False})
Those codes eventually get put into InvitationError, which
inherits from JsonableError, and we do actually display
these errors in the webapp:
if skipped and len(skipped) == len(invitee_emails):
# All e-mails were skipped, so we didn't actually invite anyone.
raise InvitationError(_("We weren't able to invite anyone."),
skipped, sent_invitations=False)
I will try to untangle this somewhat in upcoming commits.
Previously, the input:
====================
- One
- Two
Two continued
====================
Would produce the same output as:
====================
- One
- Two
```
Two continued
```
====================
This was because our CodeBlockProcessor had a higher priority than
the ListIndentProcessor. This issue was discussed here:
https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/9-issues/topic/continuation.20paragraphs.20in.20list.20items.
/delete_topic endpoint could be used to request the deletion of a topic,
that would cause do_delete_messages to be called with an empty set in
these cases:
1. Requesting deletion of an empty stream.
2. Requesting deletion of a topic in a private stream with history not
public to subscribers, if the requesting admin doesn't have access to
any of the messages in that topic.
This function slims down the data that we get
from the database in order to create the
streams part of our client payload.
We also fix a typo.
We also clearly distinguish between queries
and lists here.
This new method prevents us from getting fat
objects from the database.
Instead, now we just get ids from the database
to build our subqueries.
Note that we could also technically eliminate
the `set(...)` wrappers in this code to have
Django make a subquery and save a round trip.
I am postponing that for another commit (since
it's still somewhat coupled to some other
complexity in `do_get_streams` that I am trying
to cut through, plus it's not the main point
of this commit.)
BEFORE:
# old, still in use for other codepaths
def get_stream_subscriptions_for_user(user_profile: UserProfile) -> QuerySet:
# TODO: Change return type to QuerySet[Subscription]
return Subscription.objects.filter(
user_profile=user_profile,
recipient__type=Recipient.STREAM,
)
user_subs = get_stream_subscriptions_for_user(user_profile).filter(
active=True,
).select_related('recipient')
recipient_check = Q(id__in=[sub.recipient.type_id for sub in user_subs])
AFTER:
# newly added
def get_subscribed_stream_ids_for_user(user_profile: UserProfile) -> QuerySet:
return Subscription.objects.filter(
user_profile_id=user_profile,
recipient__type=Recipient.STREAM,
active=True,
).values_list('recipient__type_id', flat=True)
subscribed_stream_ids = get_subscribed_stream_ids_for_user(user_profile)
recipient_check = Q(id__in=set(subscribed_stream_ids))
We calculate `max_message_id` for the mobile client.
Our query now no longer joins to the Message table
and just grabs one value instead of fat objects.
For historical reasons we were creating Recipient
objects at some point in the typing-notifications
codepath. Now we just work with UserProfiles.
This removes some queries, as indicated by
the change to `len(queries)` in a couple of the
tests.
The one subtle thing that changes here is huddles.
If user 10 sends a typing notification that they
are talking to users 20 and 30, there might not
actually be a huddle for users 10/20/30, but
we were actually creating huddles on the fly!
There is no need to create huddles just for
typing notifications, since we don't even
share huddle ids with our clients. The clients
just infer the huddles.
Some of the code that gets killed off here as
somewhat "collateral damage" is some
defensive code related to formerly supporting streams
in typing indicators. The support for streams
was killed off almost as soon as we released
the feature, and the codepath is pretty clearly
user-centric at this point.
I actually like this pattern:
def check_send_typing_notification(...):
typing_notification = check_typing_notification(...)
do_send_typing_notification(...)
It can help divide responsibilities nicely and make it easy
to write detailed unit tests against each of the two helpers.
Unfortunately, the good things didn't really happen here, and
instead we got the worst aspects of the pattern:
- The responsibilities for validation leaked into
the second function.
- Both functions were doing sane things individually
that became not-so-sane in the big picture (namely,
we ended up making Recipient objects for no reason,
but if you read each of the helpers, it was just one
step that seemed reasonable).
- Passing around dictionaries for results can be annoying.
Also, the pattern made a lot more sense when the validation
for typing was a lot more complicated. My prior commit makes
it so that we only ever deal with a list of user_ids.
Anyway, now I'm inlining it. :)
Subsequent commits will clean up the more substantive issue
here, which is that we are building Recipients for no reason.
Before the Django 2.x upgrade, the DatabaseCreation
argument took an integer value. To deal with running
mulitple test instances, we created a random start
range that could count up 100 workers until the next
random id. Arbitrarily limiting the number of workers
to 100.
Post upgrade, we can now use string values. Enabling
the database + worker numbers to be more readable, as
well as removing the cap on the worker count.
This field wasn't accessed by any clients and was a less robust
version of the user_id field. Any client hoping to be interested in
who did message edits should be able to handle working with user IDs
rather than email addresses.
This is preparation for supporting moving messages between streams in
some cases.
It doesn't actually have any functional effect, since flush_message
clears the message unconditionally anyway.
This is mostly refactoring, but we also prevent a new
type of value error (list of non-int-or-string). The
new test code helps enforce that.
Cleanup includes:
- Use early-exit for email case.
- Rename helpers to get_validate_*.
- Avoid clumsy rebuilding of lists in helpers.
- Avoid the confusing `recipient` name (which
can be confused with the model by the same
name).
- Just delegate duplicate-id/email-removal to
the helpers.
The cleaner structure allows us to elminate a couple
mypy workarounds.
Credits to @xpac1985 for reporting, debugging and proposing fix to the
issue. The proposed fix was modified slightly by @hackerkid to set the
correct value for max_invites and upload_quota_gb. Tests added by
@hackerkid.
Fixes#13974
This fixes a confusing aspect of how our automated tests worked
previously, where we'd almost all HTTP requests in the unlikely
configuration with no User-Agent string specified.
We need to adjust query counts in a few tests that now are a bit
cheaper because they now can take advantage of a Client object created
in server_initialization.py in `process_client`.
Steve Howell
Mateusz Mandera
Tim Abbott
Vishnu KS
Rohitt Vashishtha
Chris Bobbe
Wyatt Hoodes
harshavardhanpb