We don't want really long urls to lead to truncated
keys, or we could theoretically have two different
urls get mixed up previews.
Also, this suppresses warnings about exceeding the
250 char limit.
Finally, this gives the key a proper prefix.
We use UserMessageLite to avoid Django overhead, and we
do updates in chunks of 10000. (The export may be broken
into several files already, but a reasonable chunking at
import time is good defense against running out of memory.)
Now that we allow multiple users to have registered the same token, we
need to configure calls to unregister tokens to only query the
targeted user_id.
We conveniently were already passing the `user_id` into the push
notification bouncer for the remove API, so no migration for older
Zulip servers is required.
If cordelia searches on pm-with:iago@zulip.com,cordelia@zulip.com,
we now properly treat that the same way as pm-with:iago@zulip.com.
Before this fix, the query would initially go through the
huddle code path. The symptom wasn't completely obvious, as
eventually a deeper function would return a recipient id
corresponding to a single PM with @iago@zulip.com, but we would
only get messages where iago was the recipient, and not any
messages where he was the sender to cordelia.
I put the helper function for this in zerver/lib/addressee, which
is somewhat speculative. Eventually, we'll want pm-with queries
to allow for user ids, and I imagine there will be some shared
logic with other Addressee code in terms of how we handle these
strings. The way we deal with lists of emails/users for various
endpoints is kind of haphazard in the current code, although
granted it's mostly just repeating the same simple patterns. It
would be nice for some of this code to converge a bit. This
affects new messages, typing indicators, search filters, etc.,
and some endpoints have strange legacy stuff like supporting
JSON-encoded lists, so it's not trivial to clean this up.
Tweaked by tabbott to add some additional tests.
For our bots that use GenericOutgoingWebhookService
(which are basically Zulip style bots), we now
include a "content-type" header of "application/json".
We accomplish this by having the service classes
implement their own custom method called
`send_data_to_server`. For the Slack-related
code, we just extracted code from `do_rest_call`,
and then for the Zulip-related code, we added
a `headers` parameter.
If we omit methods in subclasses, they're likely to
be caught by linters or unit tests, and even if they
aren't, raising NotImplementedError doesn't actually
prevent user problems.
I've been fighting these in refactoring, and it's
just been a bunch of busy work, plus comments are
highly likely to bitrot.
This fixes a couple things:
* process_event() is a pretty vague name
* returning tuples should generally be avoided
* we were producing the same REST parameters in both
subclasses
* relative_url_path was always blank
* request_kwargs was always empty
Now process_event() is called build_bot_request(),
and it only returns request data,
not a tuple of `rest_operation` and `request_data`.
By no longer returning `rest_operation`, there are
fewer moving parts. We just have `do_rest_call` make
a POST call.
Before this change, we instantiated base_url into a superclass
of subclasses that returned base_url into a dictionary that
gets returned to our caller.
Now we just pull base_url out of service when we need to make
the REST call.
We move the JSON parsing step into the
higher level function: process_success_response().
In the unlikely event that we'll start integrating
with a solution that doesn't use JSON, we can deal
with that, and for now doing the parsing in one
place will help us make error reporting more
consistent.
In a subsequent commit we'll introduce better
error handling for malformed JSON.
The earlier code here, if it got a payload with
"response_string" as a key, would prefix the
corresponding value with "Success!". We just
want the bot to set its own content.
The code is reorganized here so that process_success()
always produces a value keyed by "content" from
incoming data, and then process_success_response()
doesn't do any fancy munging of the data.
This is a preparatory commit for upcoming changes to move
/avatar/ to be a logged in or API accessible endpoint.
Basically we rename this variable because the new name is more
appropriate in the situation. Also user_profile will be used to
hold the user_profile of person accessing the endpoint in coming up
commit.
We simplify the code for is_realm_admin
and set is_guest as well.
I verified that build_user() is not used
by Slack/Gitter, so the extra argument there
should be fine.
Fixes#10639
Previously, Zulip did not correctly handle the case of a mobile device
being registered with a push device token being registered for
multiple accounts on the same server (which is a common case on
zulipchat.com). This was because our database `unique` and
`unique_together` indexes incorrectly enforced the token being unique
on a given server, rather than unique for a given user_id.
We fix this gap, and at the same time remove unnecessary (and
incorrectly racey) logic deleting and recreating the tokens in the
appropriate tables.
There's still an open mobile app bug causing repeated re-registrations
in a loop, but this should fix the fact that the relevant mobile bug
causes the server to 500.
Follow-up work that may be of value includes:
* Removing `ios_app_id`, which may not have much purpose.
* Renaming `last_updated` to `data_created`, since that's what it is now.
But none of those are critical to solving the actual bug here.
Fixes#8841.
We now allow outgoing webhooks to provide us a
"content" field, which is probably a more guessable
name than "response_string", particularly for folks
that use our other bot-related APIs. And we don't
modify content as we do response_string, i.e. no
"Success!" prefix.
If we're not too concerned about backward compatibility,
we can do a subsequent commit that makes "content"
and "response_string" true synonyms and get rid of
the "Success!" prefix, which was probably accidental
to begin with.
This commit starts by changing the third
argument of send_response_message to be a Dict
instead of a string, so that the data can be more
structured going forward.
That change makes the 2nd/3rd parameters both be
dicts, so to be defensive, I now have all the callers
pass in explicit keyword names. And then I rename
message to message_info, so that the callers have
more clear code.
And that changes the implementation inside of
send_response_message() a bit.
Sorry this commit is a bit coarse, but the intermediate
commits would have been kind of ugly, too.
At the end of the day, it's pretty simple:
bot_id: never changed
message_info: just renamed from message
response_data: is a Dict with the key of "content"
And the innards of send_response_message() are basically
simply dictionary lookups and function calls.
There's no reason to return a failure message in
process_success(), since it's implied to be part of
the success codepath. I didn't look at the full history
of how the strange API evolved, but the second element
of the tuple was clearly noise by the time I got here.
Neither of the subclasses ever set it, and none of the
consumers used it.
This two-line function wasn't really carrying its
weight, and it just made it harder to refactor the
overall codepath.
Eliminating the function forces us to mock at a slightly
deeper level, which is probably a good thing for what
the test intends to do. The deeper mock still verifies that
we're sending the message (good) without digging into
all the details of how we send it (good).
Note that we will still keep around the similarly named
`fail_with_message` helper, which is a lot more useful.
(The succeed/fail scenarios aren't really symmetric here.
For success, there are fewer codepaths that do more complex
things, whereas we have lots and lots of failure codepaths
that all do the same simple thing of replying with a canned
message.)
Before this change subclasses of OutgoingWebhookServiceInterface
would return a raw string as the first element of its return
tuple in process_success(). This is not a very flexible
design, as it prevents the bot from passing extra data like
`widget_content`.
It's also possible in the future that we'll want to let outgoing
bots reply directly to senders who mention them on streams, and
again the original design was overly constrained for that.
This commit does not actually change any functionality yet.
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Joshua Pan
Aditya Bansal
Vishnu Ks
Rishi Gupta