We remove the "GROUP PMs" section that used
to be in the lower right sidebar.
Most of this is straightforward code removal.
A couple quick notes:
- The message fetching code now just
calls `huddle_data.process_loaded_messages`,
which we still need for search suggestions.
We removed `activity.process_loaded_messages`.
- The `huddle_data.process_loaded_messages`
function no longer needs to return `need_resize`.
- In `resize.js` we now just calculate
`res.buddy_list_wrapper_max_height` directly
from `usable_height`.
The bug this was working around does not affect our current toolchain,
as confirmed by grepping through the minified output.
(Also, this linter rule only matched calc(x + y) with two arguments
and we were already using calc($far_left_gutter_size + $left_col_size
+ 4px).)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
In Django 2.1, the preferred way to express a nullable BooleanField
changed from NullBooleanField to passing null=True to BooleanField.
This updates our codebase to use the preferred API. Tweaked by
tabbott to update the linter rules.
The migration is a noop for Django accounting only.
Part of #11341.
Generated by `pyupgrade --py3-plus --keep-percent-format` on all our
Python code except `zthumbor` and `zulip-ec2-configure-interfaces`,
followed by manual indentation fixes.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Add sgrep (sgrep.dev) to tooling and include simple rule as
proof of concept. Included rule detects use of old django render
function.
Also added a rule that looks for if-else statements where both
code paths are identical.
While we could fix this issue by changing the markdown processor,
doing so is not a robust solution, because even a momentary bug in the
markdown processor could allow cached messages that do not follow our
security policy.
This change ensures that even if our markdown processor has bugs that
result in rendered content that does not properly follow our policy of
using rel="noopener noreferrer" on links, we'll still do something
reasonable.
Co-authored-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@zulipchat.com>
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
isort 5 knows not to reorder imports across function calls, so this
will stop isort from breaking our code.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
I believe we can remove these and rely on
other parts of our testing/code-review
to ensure template quality.
These tests never really exercised our
app code, as evidenced by us not regressing
any of the 100%-line-coverage files.
We have a couple other ways that we verify
the correct format of the templates:
- webpack (can they compile?)
- check-templates (are they nicely indented?)
For deep testing, we have Casper, which
exercises most of our most important templates
in some meaningful way.
I think it's pretty rare that we get bugs
now that are directly caused by bad templates,
and an even smaller subset of them would
have been caught by the node tests.
If that trend changes in the future, I would prefer to
just do something "greenfield" to address
any common problems rather than resurrect
this code, but we could always resurrect it
from git.
The template node tests did check a little bit of
detail about which fields are there, but not
in an integrated way, so that aspect of the tests
wasn't very useful either.
We prefer this to internal_send_message().
We are trying to deprecate `internal_send_message`,
which has extra moving parts related to
`extract_recipients` and `Addressee.legacy_build`.
There are two chunks of code that I touch here
that look pretty similar, but I'm not quite
sure they're worth de-duplicating, since they
use different topics and different message
content.
Instead of having `notify_new_user` delegate
all the heavy lifting to `send_signup_message`,
we just rename `send_signup_message` to be
`notify_new_user` and remove the one-line
wrapper.
We remove a lot of obsolete complexity:
- `internal` was no longer ever set to True
by real code, so we kill it off as well
as well as killing off the internal_blurb code
and the now-obsolete test
- the `sender` parameter was actually an
email, not a UserProfile, but I think
that got past mypy due to the caller
passing in something from settings.py
- we were only passing in NOTIFICATION_BOT
for the sender, so we just hard code
that now
- we eliminate the verbose
`admin_realm_signup_notifications_stream`
parameter and just hard code it to
"signups"
- we weren't using the optional realm
parameter
There's also a long ugly comment in
`get_recipient_info` related to this code
that I amended for now.
We should try to take action in a subsequent
commit.
We now use vdom-ish techniques to track the
list items for the pm list. When we go to update
the list, we only re-render nodes whose data
has changed, with two exceptions:
- Obviously, the first time we do a full render.
- If the keys for the items have changed (i.e.
a new node has come in or the order has changed),
we just re-render the whole list.
If the keys are the same since the last re-render, we
only re-render individual items if their data has
changed.
Most of the new code is in these two modules:
- pm_list_dom.js
- vdom.js
We remove all of the code in pm_list.js that is
related to updating DOM with unread counts.
For presence updates, we are now *never*
re-rendering the whole list, since presence
updates only change individual line items and
don't affect the keys. Instead, we just update
any changed elements in place.
The main thing that makes this all work is the
`update` method in `vdom`, which is totally generic
and essentially does a few simple jobs:
- detect if keys are different
- just render the whole ul as needed
- for items that change, do the appropriate
jQuery to update the item in place
Note that this code seems to play nice with simplebar.
Also, this code continues to use templates to render
the individual list items.
FWIW this code isn't radically different than list_render,
but it's got some key differences:
- There are fewer bells and whistles in this code.
Some of the stuff that list_render does is overkill
for the PM list.
- This code detects data changes.
Note that the vdom scheme is agnostic about templates;
it simply requires the child nodes to provide a render
method. (This is similar to list_render, which is also
technically agnostic about rendering, but which also
does use templates in most cases.)
These fixes are somewhat related to #13605, but we
haven't gotten a solid repro on that issue, and
the scrolling issues there may be orthogonal to the
redraws. But having fewer moving parts here should
help, and we won't get the rug pulled out from under
us on every presence update.
There are two possible extensions to this that are
somewhat overlapping in nature, but can be done
one a time.
* We can do a deeper vdom approach here that
gets us away from templates, and just have
nodes write to an AST. I have this on another
branch, but it might be overkill.
* We can avoid some redraws by detecting where
keys are moving up and down. I'm not completely
sure we need it for the PM list.
If this gets merged, we may want to try similar
things for the stream list, which also does a fairly
complicated mixture of big-hammer re-renders and
surgical updates-in-place (with custom code).
BTW we have 100% line coverage for vdom.js.
This legacy cross-realm bot hasn't been used in several years, as far
as I know. If we wanted to re-introduce it, I'd want to implement it
as an embedded bot using those common APIs, rather than the totally
custom hacky code used for it that involves unnecessary queue workers
and similar details.
Fixes#13533.
Addresses point 1 of #13533.
MissedMessageEmailAddress objects get tied to the specific that was
missed by the user. A useful benefit of that is that email message sent
to that address will handle topic changes - if the message that was
missed gets its topic changed, the email response will get posted under
the new topic, while in the old model it would get posted under the
old topic, which could potentially be confusing.
Migrating redis data to this new model is a bit tricky, so the migration
code has comments explaining some of the compromises made there, and
test_migrations.py tests handling of the various possible cases that
could arise.
Fixes#13452.
The migration from UserProfile.is_realm_admin/UserProfile.is_guest in
e10361a832 broke our LDAP-based support
for setting a user's role via LDAP properties, which relied on setting
those fields. Because the django-auth-ldap feature powering that only
supports booleans (and in any case, we don't want to expose constants
like `ROLE_REALM_ADMINISTRATOR` to the LDAP configuration interface),
it makes sense to provide setters for these legacy fields for
backwards-compatibility.
We lint against using these setters directly in Zulip's codebase
directly. The issue with using these is that when changing user's
.role we want to create appropriate RealmAuditLog entries and send
events. This isn't possible when using these setters - the log entries
and events should be created if the role change in the UserProfile is
actually save()-ed to the database - and on the level of the setter
function, it's not known whether the change will indeed be saved.
It would have to be somehow figured out on the level of post_save
signal handlers, but it doesn't seem like a good design to have such
complexity there, for the sake of setters that generally shouldn't be
used anyway - because we prefer the do_change_is_* functions.
The purpose of this change is narrowly to handle use cases like the
setattr on these boolean properties.
A bug in Zulip's new user signup process meant that users who
registered their account using social authentication (e.g. GitHub or
Google SSO) in an organization that also allows password
authentication could have their personal API key stolen by an
unprivileged attacker, allowing nearly full access to the user's
account.
Zulip versions between 1.7.0 and 2.0.6 were affected.
This commit fixes the original bug and also contains a database
migration to fix any users with corrupt `password` fields in the
database as a result of the bug.
Out of an abundance of caution (and to protect the users of any
installations that delay applying this commit), the migration also
resets the API keys of any users where Zulip's logs cannot prove the
user's API key was not previously stolen via this bug. Resetting
those API keys will be inconvenient for users:
* Users of the Zulip mobile and terminal apps whose API keys are reset
will be logged out and need to login again.
* Users using their personal API keys for any other reason will need
to re-fetch their personal API key.
We discovered this bug internally and don't believe it was disclosed
prior to our publishing it through this commit. Because the algorithm
for determining which users might have been affected is very
conservative, many users who were never at risk will have their API
keys reset by this migration.
To avoid this on self-hosted installations that have always used
e.g. LDAP authentication, we skip resetting API keys on installations
that don't have password authentication enabled. System
administrators on installations that used to have email authentication
enabled, but no longer do, should temporarily enable EmailAuthBackend
before applying this migration.
The migration also records which users had their passwords or API keys
reset in the usual RealmAuditLog table.
- Moves "Authentication in the development environment" from subsystems
to "development/authentication.md".
- Moves "Renumbering migrations" to a section within "Schema migrations".
login_context now gets the social_backends list through
get_social_backend_dicts and we move display_logo customization
to backend class definition.
This prepares for easily adding multiple IdP support in SAML
authentication - there will be a social_backend dict for each configured
IdP, also allowing display_name and icon customization per IdP.
Follow up of commit 2a1305d. Replace all local variables named 'msgid'
with 'message_id' in all JS and HTML files, and adds a linter rule for
it as well.
Resolves#12952.
This let's us clean up the linter that excludes the use of get_stream
and by adding the access_unchecked in the name we make it clear that
it should be used with caution.
Refactoring idea by Tim Abbott.
tools/linter_lib/pyflakes.py:35: error: Argument 3 to "run_pyflakes" has incompatible type "List[Tuple[bytes, bytes]]"; expected "List[Tuple[str, str]]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:110: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:214: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:214: error: Argument "shebang_rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:502: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:502: error: Argument "shebang_rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:519: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:706: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:728: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:738: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:779: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:779: error: Argument "length_exclude" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "Set[str]"; expected "List[str]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:803: error: Argument "length_exclude" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "Set[str]"; expected "List[str]"
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:805: error: Unsupported operand types for + ("List[Rule]" and "List[Dict[str, Any]]")
tools/linter_lib/custom_check.py:819: error: Argument "rules" to "RuleList" has incompatible type "List[Dict[str, Any]]"; expected "List[Rule]"
These were missed the `zulint` package was missing PEP 561 type
annotation markers, and if it’d had them, mypy daemon mode would’ve
required us to set `follow_imports = skip` for it.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
Steve Howell
Anders Kaseorg
sahil839
Tim Abbott
Rohitt Vashishtha
Aman Agrawal
Abhishek-Balaji
Anders Kaseorg
wowol
brendon
arpit551
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Mateusz Mandera
David Rosa
Vishnu KS
Rishi Gupta
Vinit Singh
okmanl
Priyank Patel