webpack optimizes JSON modules using JSON.parse("{…}"), which is
faster than the normal JavaScript parser.
Update the backend to use emoji_codes.json too instead of the three
separate JSON files.
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.
This effectively reverts the following
commit from May 2019:
be527905ca
The implementation of closest() was a bit
buggy and complex. It's easy enough
to just stub the method yourself. We may
want to eventually re-implement it, but we
should follow the template of parent/set_parent.
If you fail to stub `closest` zjquery gives
a fairly helpful error message:
Error: You must create a stub for $("link-stub").closest
We stub out jquery elements rather than giving
the illusion of having real DOM.
Also, we make it so that the message_store
interaction has an assertion attached to it.
In the next commit we're going to change what the
server sends for the following:
- page_params
- server responses to /json/users/me/presence
We will **not** yet be changing the format of the data
that we get in events when users update their presence.
It's also just a bit in flux what our final formats
will be for various presence payloads, and different
optimizations may lead us to use different data
structures in different payloads.
So for now we decouple these two things:
raw_info: this is intended to represent a
snapshot of the latest data from the
server, including some data like
timestamps that are only used
in downstream calculations and not
user-facing
exports.presence_info: this is calculated
info for modules like buddy_data that
just need to know active vs. idle and
last_active_date
Another change that happens here is we rename
set_info_for_user to update_info_for_event,
which just makes it clear that the function
expects data in the "event" format (as opposed
to the format for page_params or server
responses).
As of now keeping the intermediate raw_info data
around feels slightly awkward, because we just
immediately calculate presence_info for any kind
of update. This may be sorta surprising if you
just skim the code and see the various timeout
constants. You would think we might be automatically
expiring "active" statuses in the client due to
the simple passage of time, but in fact the precise
places we do this are all triggered by new data
from the server and we re-calculate statuses
immediately.
(There are indirect ways that clients
have timing logic, since they ask the
server for new data at various intervals, but a
smarter client could simply expire users on its
own, or at least with a more efficient transfer
of info between it and the server. One of
the thing that complicates client-side logic
is that server and client clocks may be out
of sync. Also, it's not inherently super expensive
to get updates from the server.)
The important details for the test setup here
are just the number of users who are active.
We don't need to simulate the currently awkward
way of populating this data.
The _.each calls with an inline function expression have already been
converted to for…of loops. We could do that here, but using .forEach
when we’re just reusing an existing function seems like a good
guideline.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
predicate is expected to return a function, not a boolean. The
boolean true was causing _.filter to match items with a property named
"true", which is definitely not what was intended. Matching no items
is probably also not intended, but matching every item causes the test
to fail.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
We just get the stream_name from the sub struct now.
This mostly affects node tests.
The only place in real code where we called add_sub()
was when we initialized data from the server.
We now require all of our unit tests to handle
blueslip errors for warn/error/fatal. This
simplifies the zblueslip code to not have any
options passed in.
Most of the places changed here fell into two
categories:
- We were just missing a random piece of
setup data in a happy path test.
- We were testing error handling in just
a lazy way to ensure 100% coverage. Often
these error codepaths were fairly
contrived.
The one place where we especially lazy was
the stream_data tests, and those are now
more thorough.
This saves a tiny bit of bandwidth, but more
importantly, it protects us against races for
stream name changes. There's some argument that
if the user is thinking they're sending to
old_stream_name, and unbeknownst to them, the
stream has changed to new_stream_name, then we
should fail. But I think 99% of the time the
user just wants the message to go that stream
despite any renames.
In order to verify the blueslip error, we
had to turn on error checking, which required
a tiny fix to a place where we left out
a stream_id for add_sub.
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Chris Heald
Vishnu KS