Having a non-identity `cache_transformer` is no different from running
it on every row of the query_function. Simplify understanding of the
codepath used in caching by merging the pieces of code.
Added an additional test case to `test_submessages.py` for testing the
message object containing `submessages` meta data.
Previous to this commit we were never validating the `submessage` schema
in the `message` objects.
Fixes#25896.
django-stubs 4.2.1 gives transaction.on_commit a more accurate type
annotation, but this exposed that mypy can’t handle the lambda default
parameters that we use to recapture loop variables such as
for stream_id in public_stream_ids:
peer_user_ids = …
event = …
transaction.on_commit(
lambda event=event, peer_user_ids=peer_user_ids: send_event(
realm, event, peer_user_ids
)
)
https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/15459
A workaround that mypy accepts is
transaction.on_commit(
(
lambda event, peer_user_ids: lambda: send_event(
realm, event, peer_user_ids
)
)(event, peer_user_ids)
)
But that’s kind of ugly and potentially error-prone, so let’s make a
helper function for this very common pattern.
send_event_on_commit(realm, event, peer_user_ids)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
This commit renames the 'tornado_redirected_to_list' context
manager to 'capture_send_event_calls' to improve readability.
It also refactors the function to yield a list of events
instead of passing in a list data structure as a parameter
and appending events to it.
We now complain if a test author sends a stream message
that does not result in the sender getting a
UserMessage row for the message.
This is basically 100% equivalent to complaining that
the author failed to subscribe the sender to the stream
as part of the test setup, as far as I can tell, so the
AssertionError instructs the author to subscribe the
sender to the stream.
We exempt bots from this check, although it is
plausible we should only exempt the system bots like
the notification bot.
I considered auto-subscribing the sender to the stream,
but that can be a little more expensive than the
current check, and we generally want test setup to be
explicit.
If there is some legitimate way than a subscribed human
sender can't get a UserMessage, then we probably want
an explicit test for that, or we may want to change the
backend to just write a UserMessage row in that
hypothetical situation.
For most tests, including almost all the ones fixed
here, the author just wants their test setup to
realistically reflect normal operation, and often devs
may not realize that Cordelia is not subscribed to
Denmark or not realize that Hamlet is not subscribed to
Scotland.
Some of us don't remember our Shakespeare from high
school, and our stream subscriptions don't even
necessarily reflect which countries the Bard placed his
characters in.
There may also be some legitimate use case where an
author wants to simulate sending a message to an
unsubscribed stream, but for those edge cases, they can
always set allow_unsubscribed_sender to True.
This locks the message while creating a submessage, which
will handle race conditions caused by deleting the message
simultaneously.
We make sure that events work happens outside the transaction,
so that in case there's a problem with the queue processor,
the locks aren't held for too long.
Fixes#2665.
Regenerated by tabbott with `lint --fix` after a rebase and change in
parameters.
Note from tabbott: In a few cases, this converts technical debt in the
form of unsorted imports into different technical debt in the form of
our largest files having very long, ugly import sequences at the
start. I expect this change will increase pressure for us to split
those files, which isn't a bad thing.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Automatically generated by the following script, based on the output
of lint with flake8-comma:
import re
import sys
last_filename = None
last_row = None
lines = []
for msg in sys.stdin:
m = re.match(
r"\x1b\[35mflake8 \|\x1b\[0m \x1b\[1;31m(.+):(\d+):(\d+): (\w+)", msg
)
if m:
filename, row_str, col_str, err = m.groups()
row, col = int(row_str), int(col_str)
if filename == last_filename:
assert last_row != row
else:
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
with open(filename) as f:
lines = f.readlines()
last_filename = filename
last_row = row
line = lines[row - 1]
if err in ["C812", "C815"]:
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 1] + "," + line[col - 1 :]
elif err in ["C819"]:
assert line[col - 2] == ","
lines[row - 1] = line[: col - 2] + line[col - 1 :].lstrip(" ")
if last_filename is not None:
with open(last_filename, "w") as f:
f.writelines(lines)
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
mock is just a backport of the standard library’s unittest.mock now.
The SAMLAuthBackendTest change is needed because
MagicMock.call_args.args wasn’t introduced until Python
3.8 (https://bugs.python.org/issue21269).
The PROVISION_VERSION bump is skipped because mock is still an
indirect dev requirement via moto.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
We now have this API...
If you really just need to log in
and not do anything with the actual
user:
self.login('hamlet')
If you're gonna use the user in the
rest of the test:
hamlet = self.example_user('hamlet')
self.login_user(hamlet)
If you are specifically testing
email/password logins (used only in 4 places):
self.login_by_email(email, password)
And for failures uses this (used twice):
self.assert_login_failure(email)
This commit mostly makes our tests less
noisy, since emails are no longer an important
detail of sending messages (they're not even
really used in the API).
It also sets us up to have more scrutiny
on delivery_email/email in the future
for things that actually matter. (This is
a prep commit for something along those
lines, kind of hard to explain the full
plan.)
This is a preparator refactor for supporting hosting different Tornado
processes on different servers; to look up which Tornado server we
should be sending the event to, we'll need the realm object.
For some reason in my original version I was sending both
content and data to the client for submessage events,
where data === JSON.parse(content). There's no reason
to not just let the client parse it, since the client
already does it for data that comes on the original
message, and since we might eventually have non-JSON
payloads.
The server still continues to validate that the payload
is JSON, and the client will blueslip if the server
regressses and sends bad JSON for some reason.
Alex Vandiver
Lalit
Anders Kaseorg
Prakhar Pratyush
Steve Howell
rht
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Anders Kaseorg
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott