This code removes a lot of complexity with very likely
positive overall impact on system performance and
negligible downside.
We already cache display recipients on a per-user
level, so there's no need for another cache layer on
top of that that keys them with recipient ids.
We avoid strange things where Alice/Bob and Bob/Charlie
get put into the top layer cache and then we still have
a cache miss on Alice/Charlie despite the lower level
cache being able to support per-user lookups.
This change does introduce an extra database round trip
if any of our messages have a huddle, but the query is
extremely cheap, and we can always try to cache that
function more directly or try to re-use some of our
other huddle-based caches.
As part of this, we clean up the names for the
lower-level per-user cache of display recipients, and
we simplify the cache keys.
We also stop passing in a full Recipient object to the
`bulk_get_huddle_user_ids` functions.
The local impact of this change should be easy to
measure (at least approximately), since we use this
function every time a user gets messages via the
/messages endpoint.
We restrict the columns, avoid quadratic looping,
and don't bother with order_by.
We also return the user ids (per recipient) as
sets, since that's how the only caller uses the
info (albeit implicitly via set.union accepting
a list).
This implements the core of the rewrite described in:
For the backend data model for UserPresence to one that supports much
more efficient queries and is more correct around handling of multiple
clients. The main loss of functionality is that we no longer track
which Client sent presence data (so we will no longer be able to say
using UserPresence "the user was last online on their desktop 15
minutes ago, but was online with their phone 3 minutes ago"). If we
consider that information important for the occasional investigation
query, we have can construct that answer data via UserActivity
already. It's not worth making Presence much more expensive/complex
to support it.
For slim_presence clients, this sends the same data format we sent
before, albeit with less complexity involved in constructing it. Note
that we at present will always send both last_active_time and
last_connected_time; we may revisit that in the future.
This commit doesn't include the finalizing migration, which drops the
UserPresenceOld table.
The way to deploy is to start the backfill migration with the server
down and then start the server *without* the user_presence queue worker,
to let the migration finish without having new data interfering with it.
Once the migration is done, the queue worker can be started, leading to
the presence data catching up to the current state as the queue worker
goes over the queued up events and updating the UserPresence table.
Co-authored-by: Mateusz Mandera <mateusz.mandera@zulip.com>
For alert words, we currently don't send email/push notifications --
only desktop notifications. Thus, we don't need to consider alert words
here, since desktop notifications do not utilize the presence status
calculated at this stage.
Tested manually that alert word desktop notifications work as expected.
When we implement email/push notifications for alert words (issues #5137
and #13127), we can add new fields like
`notifications_data.alert_word_email_notify`, similar to the existing
`notifications_data.wildcard_mention_email_notify`, which will allow us
to keep the alert word notifiability check inside the dataclass, similar
to how the mentions checks are done currently. So, even when that
feature is implemented, the code which this commit removes would be
unnecessary.
Previously, we checked for the `enable_offline_email_notifications` and
`enable_offline_push_notifications` settings (which determine whether the
user will receive notifications for PMs and mentions) just before sending
notifications. This has a few problem:
1. We do not have access to all the user settings in the notification
handlers (`handle_missedmessage_emails` and `handle_push_notifications`),
and therefore, we cannot correctly determine whether the notification should
be sent. Checks like the following which existed previously, will, for
example, incorrectly not send notifications even when stream email
notifications are enabled-
```
if not receives_offline_email_notifications(user_profile):
return
```
With this commit, we simply do not enqueue notifications if the "offline"
settings are disabled, which fixes that bug.
Additionally, this also fixes a bug with the "online push notifications"
feature, which was, if someone were to:
* turn off notifications for PMs and mentions (`enable_offline_push_notifications`)
* turn on stream push notifications (`enable_stream_push_notifications`)
* turn on "online push" (`enable_online_push_notifications`)
then, they would still receive notifications for PMs when online.
This isn't how the "online push enabled" feature is supposed to work;
it should only act as a wrapper around the other notification settings.
The buggy code was this in `handle_push_notifications`:
```
if not (
receives_offline_push_notifications(user_profile)
or receives_online_push_notifications(user_profile)
):
return
// send notifications
```
This commit removes that code, and extends our `notification_data.py` logic
to cover this case, along with tests.
2. The name for these settings is slightly misleading. They essentially
talk about "what to send notifications for" (PMs and mentions), and not
"when to send notifications" (offline). This commit improves this condition
by restricting the use of this term only to the database field, and using
clearer names everywhere else. This distinction will be important to have
non-confusing code when we implement multiple options for notifications
in the future as dropdown (never/when offline/when offline or online, etc).
3. We should ideally re-check all notification settings just before the
notifications are sent. This is especially important for email notifications,
which may be sent after a long time after the message was sent. We will
in the future add code to thoroughly re-check settings before sending
notifications in a clean manner, but temporarily not re-checking isn't
a terrible scenario either.
* Have the `get_active_presence_idle_user_ids` function look at all the
user data, not just `private_message` and `mentioned`.
* Fix a couple of incorrect `missedmessage_hook` tests, which did not
catch the earlier behaviour.
* Add some comments to the tests for this function for clarity.
* Add a helper to create `UserMessageNotificationsData` objects from the
user ID lists. This will later help us deduplicate code in the event_queue
logic.
This fixes a bug which earlier existed, that if a user turned on stream
notifications, and received a message in that stream which did not mention
them, they wouldn't be in the `presence_idle_users` list, and hence would
never get notifications for that message.
Note that, after this commit, users might still not get notifications in
the above scenarios in some cases, because the downstream logic in the
notification queue consumers sometimes erroneously skips sending
notifications for stream messages.
This commit moves out the SoftDeactivationMessageTest out of
test_messages.py (which at the moment have mixed category of tests) into
a more logical file, test_soft_deactivation.py.
This commit moves TestMessageForIdsDisplayRecipientFetching class which
have tests regarding display_recipient filled in by MessageDict to
test_message_dict.py.
This commit moves InternalPrepTest test class to test_message_send.py
because it tests internal_send_* and internal_prep_* functions which are
used for internal message sending in zulip.
This commit moves few tests related to testing proper sending of private
messages from PrivateMessagesTest class in test_messages.py to a new class
in test_message_send.py.
This commit extracts out MessagePOSTTest class from test_messages.py
intially.
In future commits other related message sending tests will be moved from
test_messages.py to test_message_send.py.
Starting with extracting out MirroredMessageUsersTests as it is related to
mirror users than anything message-specific.
In a future commit, may extract out some tests from MessagePOSTTest as well
but still deciding on those.
For users who are unsubscribed from the new stream but are in
the old stream, we delete the UserMessage.
We send the delete_message event only to guest users,
who have completely lost asses to the moved messages, for other
users we send the normal update_message event which moves
the messages to the new unsubed stream which
otherwise would look broken to the
user without reloading to the webpage.
According to @showell:
> All the slow decorators can die. That was a failed experiment of
> mine from 2014 days. I have meaning to kill them for a couple years
> now. I wrote this with the best of intentions, but I believe it's
> now just cruft. We never made a "fast" mode, for one. And we kept
> writing more and more slow tests, haha.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This commit is first of few commita which aim to change all the
bugdown references to markdown. This commits rename the files,
file path mentions and change the imports.
Variables and other references to bugdown will be renamed in susequent
commits.
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Anders Kaseorg
Mohit Gupta
Steve Howell
Aman Agrawal