Fixes#10745.
Use get_display_recipient to get stream names, and remove the
references to message.stream_name in push_notifications.py which were
added in 97571a203, as the actual stream names were being retrived
only for Message objects associated with public streams.
This means you'll need access to our Stripe API key to add new fixtures.
Will be undone eventually, but having this in place will make it easier to
finish the mock.patch to mock_stripe migration.
This is mostly an extraction, but it does change the
way we calculate `content`. We append the markdown
links from ALL files to any content that came in the
message itself.
Separating this out also allows us to add more
test coverage for the extracted code.
We now use subscriber_map for building UserMessage
rows in Slack/Gitter conversions.
This is mostly designed to simplify the code, rather
than having to scan the entire subscribers for each
message.
I am guessing this will improve performance for most
conversions. We sort small lists on every message,
in order to be deterministic, but the sorting cost
is probably more than offset by avoiding the O(N)
scans across all subscriptions. Also, it's probably
negligible in the grand scheme of things, compared
to JSON parsing, file I/O, etc.
This commits also fixes some typos with mentioned_users_id ->
mentioned_user_ids and cleans up a test a bit as well.
We now have all three third party
conversions (Gitter/Slack/Hipchat)
go through build_user_message().
Hipchat was already using this helper.
We also avoid callers having to pass in
an id to build_user_message().
When you send a message to a bot that wants
to talk via an outgoing webhook, and there's
an error (e.g. server is down), we send a
message to the bot's owner that links to the
message that triggered the error.
The code to produce those links was out of
date.
Now we move the important code to the
`url_encoding.py` library and fix the PM
links to use the more modern style (user_ids
instead of emails). We also replace "subject"
with "topic" in the stream urls.
We want to avoid `blueslip.error` in cases where
the root cause could just be bad data that is
human-entered.
There are a few callers here who **should** be
sending good data all the time, but hopefully
they either have good test coverage, other
obvious failure symptoms, or, ideally, just
do what the user would mostly expect in the
face of bad data.
This supports guest user in the user-info-form-modal as well as in the
role section of the admin-user-table.
With some fixes by Tim Abbott and Shubham Dhama.
The purpose of this commit is to pass information
to the frontend whether the message response recieved
has been limited due to plan restrictions or not.
To implement this, the backend for limiting the message
history had to be rewritten as we used to fetch
only the message rows whose id was greater than
first_visible_message_id. The filtered rows gives us
no information on whether the message history was
limited or not. So the backend was rewritten to not
do any restriction of limiting the message rows while
making the query. The limiting of rows is now done in
post_process_limited_query which will also return back
the value of history_limited flag.
Tweaked by tabbott to note a few cases where the results are
incorrect. I'm merging this despite those, because those cases don't
impact the correctness of the feature, and it may have tricky
performance implications to fix correctly.
Apparently, we weren't actually checking that found_oldest had the
correct value; fortunately, this didn't actually result in a problem,
because the values were always correct. But this will be important as
we start extending this test.
This is a preparatory commit which will help us with removing camo.
In the upcoming commits we introduce a new endpoint which is based
out on the setting CAMO_URI. Since camo could have been hosted on
a different server as well from the main Zulip server, this change
will help us realise in tests how that scenerio might be dealt with.
This will help us eliminate camo from our production installs.
Basically it helps us de duplicate some code from upcoming code
which will help us check validity of a camo url.
Also, rename get_alert_from_message to get_gcm_alert.
With the implementation of the and get_apns_alert_title and
get_apns_alert_subtitle, the logic within get_alert_from_message
is only relevant to the GCM payload, so we adjust the name
accordingly.
Progresses #9949.
Resolves https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile/issues/1316.
The string that is returned from get_alert_from_message is
dependent upon the same message that is passed into get_apns_payload
and get_gcm_payload. The contents of those payloads that are tested via
TestGetAPNsPayload and TestGetGCMPayload, which makes the tests for
get_alert_from_message redundant.
Also, simplify the logic by removing the last elif conditional.
If we use an outgoing webhook and the web server
responds with `widget_content` in the payload, we
include that in what we send through the send-message
codepath.
This makes outgoing webhook bots more consistent with
generic bots.
The test named `test_archiving_messages_with_attachment`
started flaking recently. We use sets for comparison
instead of lists to avoid arbitrary sorting differences.
Masking content can be useful for testing
out conversions where you're dealing
with data from customers and want to avoid
inadvertently reading their content (while
still having semi-realistic messages).
Having two smaller functions should make it
easier to customize the behavior for each specific
use case. The only reason they were ever coupled
was to keep ids in sequence, but the recent NEXT_ID
changes make that a non-issue now.
We now instantiate NEXT_ID in sequencer.py, which avoids
having multiple modules make multiple copies of a sequencer
and possibly causing id collisions.
Bots are not allowed to use the same name as
other users in the realm (either bot or human).
This is kind of a big commit, but I wanted to
combine the post/patch (aka add/edit) checks
into one commit, since it's a change in policy
that affects both codepaths.
A lot of the noise is in tests. We had good
coverage on the previous code, including some places
like event testing where we were expediently
not bothering to use different names for
different bots in some longer tests. And then
of course I test some new scenarios that are relevant
with the new policy.
There are two new functions:
check_bot_name_available:
very simple Django query
check_change_bot_full_name:
this diverges from the 3-line
check_change_full_name, where the latter
is still used for the "humans" use case
And then we just call those in appropriate places.
Note that there is still a loophole here
where you can get two bots with the same
name if you reactivate a bot named Fred
that was inactive when the second bot named
Fred was created. Also, we don't attempt
to fix historical data. So this commit
shouldn't be considered any kind of lockdown,
it's just meant to help people from
inadvertently creating two bots of the same
name where they don't intend to. For more
context, we are continuing to allow two
human users in the same realm to have the
same full name, and our code should generally
be tolerant of that possibility. (A good
example is our new mention syntax, which disambiguates
same-named people using ids.)
It's also worth noting that our web app client
doesn't try to scrub full_name from its payload in
situations where the user has actually only modified other
fields in the "Edit bot" UI. Starting here
we just handle this on the server, since it's
easy to fix there, and even if we fixed it in the web
app, there's no guarantee that other clients won't be
just as brute force. It wasn't exactly broken before,
but we'd needlessly write rows to audit tables.
Fixes#10509
Tim Abbott
Jack Zhang
Rishi Gupta
Vishnu Ks
zegervdv
Steve Howell
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
Pragati Agrawal
Aditya Bansal