This change is in series of de-duplication of code in "Other permission"
section for various dropdowns.
Here rather than using "by_anyone" and "disabled" for the `value` attribute
of options, we use actual numeric values. As a result, we don't need to
manually handle to extract the data to be sent to the backend on saving.
This change is in series of de-duplication of code in "Other permission"
section for various dropdowns.
Here rather than using "by_admins_only" and "by_admins_only" for `value`
attribute of options, we use actual numeric values. This helps in
de-duplicating lot of code which is vulnerable to bugs.
For few settings like `waiting_period_threshold` it makes sense to have the
"value" attribute of option to have a value other than the actual setting
value because multiple settings are depending upon this dropdown, so
handling them in JS code makes more sense. But for many settings (which has
integer values), we have followed a wrong trend over the time of
representing every new dropdown with human-readable values and manually
handling them in JS Code, where it makes more sense to use actual setting
value. The result of which is code has become less concise, sensible and
less likely to be mistaken.
This is a preliminary commit for upcoming change where we will use
"bot_creation_policy_values" like approach for many other settings where
dropdown represents the only single setting of integer type.
This extracts the user_data inner function from get_raw_user_data as a
reusable function. We intend to reuse it for cross-realm user dicts.
A few changes were made while extracting it:
* Renaming the UserProfile argument to acting_user, so we can do loops
over a local user_profile variable.
* Moved it to zerver.lib.users, as that's a more appropriate home for
this function formatting data on users.
* Simplified the calling convention for passing custom profile fields
to reflect the fact that this function processes a single user (and
is expected to be called in a loop).
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.
"Zulip Voyager" was a name invented during the Hack Week to open
source Zulip for what a single-system Zulip server might be called, as
a Star Trek pun on the code it was based on, "Zulip Enterprise".
At the time, we just needed a name quickly, but it was never a good
name, just a placeholder. This removes that placeholder name from
much of the codebase. A bit more work will be required to transition
the `zulip::voyager` Puppet class, as that has some migration work
involved.
These docstrings hadn't been properly updated in years, and bad an
awkward mix of a bad version of the user-facing documentation and
details that are no longer true (e.g. references to "Voyager").
(One important detail is that we have real documentation for this
system now).
Closes#13736.
zerver.lib.server_initialization.create_internal has precisely the same
code (you can copy-and-paste swap them, with one level of indentation
adjustment, without generating any diff) so they can be trivially
deduplicated.
zerver.lib.server_initialization.create_users has precisely the same
code (you can copy-and-paste swap them without generating any diff) so
they can be trivially deduplicated.
This doesn't change any behavior, the purpose of this is to make the
function identical to what we have in server_initialization.py so that
it can be deduplicated in follow-up commits.
We mostly needed this for Casper tests, and that
usage was eliminated in the prior commit.
There was also some strange defensive code from
ecc42bc9f8 that
is really ancient and which I am eliminating:
const email = row.attr("data-email");
if ($("#deactivation_user_modal .email").html() !== email) {
blueslip.error("User deactivation canceled due to non-matching fields.");
ui_report.message(i18n.t("Deactivation encountered an error. Please reload and try again."),
$("#home-error"), 'alert-error');
}
If the code was there to protect against live
updates for email changes, then we no longer
have to worry about that, since we use user_ids
now as keys.
Or it might have to do with some ancient bug
where you could pop open two modals at once
or something. You can actually change users while
the modal is open (which is kinda strange, but ok),
and it works fine.
When testing this, I ran into the glitch that we
don't open redraw the Deactivated Users panel after
going into the User panel and deactivating a user.
In addition to making our schema check stricter, it also makes it
possible for us to extend check_events_dict to do additional
validation that's only expected for the full event object.
Now that we have the type situation of having anchor support passing a
string, this is a much more natural way to implement
use_first_unread_anchor.
We still support the old interface to avoid breaking compatibility
with legacy versions of the mobile apps.
A wart that has long been present inin Zulip's get_messages API is how
to request "the latest messages" in the API. Previously, the
recommendation was basically to pass anchor=10000000000000000 (for an
appropriately huge number). An accident of the server's implementation
meant that specific number of 0s was actually important to avoid a
buggy (or at least wasteful) value of found_newest=False if the query
had specified num_after=0 (since we didn't check).
This was the cause of the mobile issue
https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile/issues/3654.
The solution is to allow passing a special value of anchor='newest',
basically a special string-type value that the server can interpret as
meaning the user precisely just wants the most recent messages. We
also add an analogous anchor='oldest' or similar to avoid folks
needing to write a somewhat ugly anchor=0 for fetching the very first
messages.
We may want to also replace the use_first_unread_anchor argument to be
a "first_unread" value for the anchor parameter.
While it's not always ideal to make a value have a variable type like
this, in this case it seems like a really clean way to express the
idea of what the user is asking for in the API.
Mateusz Mandera
Pragati Agrawal
akashaviator
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
Greg Price