This reduces query counts in some cases, since
we no longer need to look up the user again. In
particular, it reduces some noise when we
count queries for O(N)-related tests.
The query count is usually reduced by 2 per
API call. We no longer need to look up Realm
and UserProfile. In most cases we are saving
these lookups for the whole tests, since we
usually already have the `user` objects for
other reasons. In a few places we are simply
moving where that query happens within the
test.
In some places I shorten names like `test_user`
or `user_profile` to just be `user`.
We want a clean codepath for the vast majority
of cases of using api_get/api_post, which now
uses email and which we'll soon convert to
accepting `user` as a parameter.
These apis that take two different types of
values for the same parameter make sweeps
like this kinda painful, and they're pretty
easy to avoid by extracting helpers to do
the actual common tasks. So, for example,
here I still keep a common method to
actually encode the credentials (since
the whole encode/decode business is an
annoying detail that you don't want to fix
in two places):
def encode_credentials(self, identifier: str, api_key: str) -> str:
"""
identifier: Can be an email or a remote server uuid.
"""
credentials = "%s:%s" % (identifier, api_key)
return 'Basic ' + base64.b64encode(credentials.encode('utf-8')).decode('utf-8')
But then the rest of the code has two separate
codepaths.
And for the uuid functions, we no longer have
crufty references to realm. (In fairness, realm
will also go away when we introduce users.)
For the `is_remote_server` helper, I just inlined
it, since it's now only needed in one place, and the
name didn't make total sense anyway, plus it wasn't
a super robust check. In context, it's easier
just to use a comment now to say what we're doing:
# If `role` doesn't look like an email, it might be a uuid.
if settings.ZILENCER_ENABLED and role is not None and '@' not in role:
# do stuff
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.)
Since the intent of our testing code was clearly to clear this cache
for every test, there's no reason for it to be a module-level global.
This allows us to remove an unnecessary import from test_runner.py,
which in combination with DEFAULT_REALM's definition was causing us to
run models code before running migrations inside test-backend.
(That bug, in turn, caused test-backend's check for whether migrations
needs to be run to happen sadly after trying to access a Realm,
trigger a test-backend crash if the Realm model had changed since the
last provision).
We use the plumbing introduced in a previous commit, to now raise
PushNotificationBouncerRetryLaterError in send_to_push_bouncer in case
of issues with talking to the bouncer server. That's a better way of
dealing with the errors than the previous approach of returning a
"failed" boolean, which generally wasn't checked in the code anyway and
did nothing.
The PushNotificationBouncerRetryLaterError exception will be nicely
handled by queue processors to retry sending again, and due to being a
JsonableError, it will also communicate the error to API users.
We add PushNotificationBouncerRetryLaterError as an exception to signal
an error occurred when trying to communicate with the bouncer and it
should be retried. We use JsonableError as the base class, because this
signal will need to work in two roles:
1. When the push notification was being issued by the queue worker
PushNotificationsWorker, it will signal to the worker to requeue the
event and try again later.
2. The exception will also possibly be raised (this will be added in the
next commit) on codepaths coming from a request to an API endpoint (for
example to add a token, to users/me/apns_device_token). In that case,
it'll be needed to provide a good error to the API user - and basing
this exception on JsonableError will allow that.
This includes adding a new endpoint to the push notification bouncer
interface, and code to call it appropriately after resetting a user's
personal API key.
When we add support for a user having multiple API keys, we may need
to add an additional key here to support removing keys associated with
just one client.
The function only used the user's realm anyway, so this is a cleaner
API.
This should also make it more convenient to permanently delete
messages manually, since one doesn't have to fetch a random user in
the realm in order to delete a message using the management shell.
No functional change.
MigrationsTestCase is intentionally omitted from this, since migrations
tests are different in their nature and so whatever setUp()
ZulipTestCase may do in the future, MigrationsTestCase may not
necessarily want to replicate.
One small change in behavior is that this creates an array with all the
row_objects at once, rather than creating them 1000 at a time.
That should be fine, given that the client batches these in units of
10000 anyway, and so we're just creating 10K rows of a relatively
small data structure in Python code here.
Fixes#1727.
With the server down, apply migrations 0245 and 0246. 0246 will remove
the pub_date column, so it's essential that the previous migrations
ran correctly to copy data before running this.
There's no reason for this to be a category of error that emails the
server administrator, since there's a good chance that fixing it will
need to be done in the Zulip codebase, not administrator action.
Historically, Zulip's implementation of wildcard mentions never
triggered either email or push notifications, instead being limited to
desktop notifications and the "mentions" counter.
We fix this just by plumbing the "wildcard_mentioned" flag through our
system.
Implements much of
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/6040#issuecomment-510157264.
We're also now ready to seriously work on #3750.
Previous cleanups (mostly the removals of Python __future__ imports)
were done in a way that introduced leading newlines. Delete leading
newlines from all files, except static/assets/zulip-emoji/NOTICE,
which is a verbatim copy of the Apache 2.0 license.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
This provides a clean warning and 40x error, rather than a 500, for
this corner case which is very likely user error.
The test here is awkward because we have to work around
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/12362.
This contains email of the user to whom notification is being
send. This has not been used in any past mobile releases, so it is
safe to remove it.
As user_id will be stable for the user, but not email. So it's better to
start consuming `user_id` instead of email on mobile.
When a bunch of messages with active notifications are all read at
once -- e.g. by the user choosing to mark all messages, or all in a
stream, as read, or just scrolling quickly through a PM conversation
-- there can be a large batch of this information to convey. Doing it
in a single GCM/FCM message is better for server congestion, and for
the device's battery.
The corresponding client-side logic is in zulip/zulip-mobile#3343 .
Existing clients today only understand one message ID at a time; so
accommodate them by sending individual GCM/FCM messages up to an
arbitrary threshold, with the rest only as a batch.
Also add an explicit test for this logic. The existing tests
that happen to cause this function to run don't exercise the
last condition, so without a new test `--coverage` complains.
Since da8f4bc0e back in August, this control flow has caused
`flags.active_mobile_push_notification` to be cleared if we don't send
these `remove` messages at all, and if we send them directly to GCM...
but not if we send them via the Zulip notification bouncer.
As a result, on a server configured to send `remove` notification-messages
via the bouncer, we accumulate "active" messages and never clear them.
If the user then does `mark_all_as_read`, we end up sending a `remove`
for each of those messages again, and all in one giant burst. We've
seen puzzling bursts of hundreds of removals pass through the bouncer
since turning on removals on chat.zulip.org; it's likely many of them
are caused by this bug.
This issue was made more acute with f4478aad5, which unconditionally
enabled removals.
Test added by tabbott.
The client-side fix to make these not a problem was in release
16.2.96, of 2018-08-22. We've been sending them from the
development community server chat.zulip.org since 2018-11-29.
We started forcing clients to upgrade with commit fb7bfbe9a,
deployed 2018-12-05 to zulipchat.com.
(The mobile app unconditionally makes a request to a route on
zulipchat.com to check for this kind of forced upgrade, so that
applies to mobile users of any Zulip server.)
So at this point it's long past safe for us to unconditionally
send these. Hardwire the old `SEND_REMOVE_PUSH_NOTIFICATIONS`
setting to True, and simplify it out.
I was hoping this would make things faster... it does, but sadly only
by about 70ms, 5% of this file's test runtime.
It sure does make this file rather less action-at-a-distance, though,
as well as fixing some duplication.
If we make a practice on the Zulip server of always explicitly setting
the desired priority, then when an old server doesn't set the priority
we can reasonably have the bouncer make a guess.
That is, this allows a Zulip server to now set the `priority`; but if
it doesn't, we use upstream's default value, which has the same effect
as we've always previously had by not setting it at all.
But when this is deployed to the push notifications bouncer server, it
does allow another server to set priority when pushing notifications
through the bouncer.
This adds a new API for sending basic analytics data (number of users,
number of messages sent) from a Zulip server to the Zulip Cloud
central analytics database, which will make it possible for servers to
elect to have their usage numbers counted in published stats on the
size of the Zulip ecosystem.
This checks if push_notification_enabled() is set to false in
handle_push_notification and adds an early return statement.
This is a significant performance optimization for our unit tests
because the push notifications code path does a number of database
queries, and this migration means we don't end up doing those queries
the hundreds of times we send PMs or mentions in our tests where we're
not trying to test the push notifications functionality.
This should also have a small message sending scalability improvement
for any Zulip servers without push notifications enabled.
Tweaked by tabbott to fix a few small issues.
Fixes#10895.
While reviewing #11012, I discovered a nondeterministic result for
test_signup, which I tracked down to specifically this triple of tests
failing when run in this order:
test-backend GCMSuccessTest \
zerver.tests.test_push_notifications.TestAPNs.test_get_apns_client \
zerver.tests.test_signup.LoginTest.test_register
with a query count mismatch like this:
expected length: 73
actual length: 79
Comparing the list of queries, it's clear that test_register was
seeing `push_notifications_enabled()` returning True in this test order.
It's not clear why GCMSuccessTest was required here (it was!), but
further debugging determined the problem was that
`test_get_apns_client` left the _apns_client initialization system in
a state where get_apns_client would return a non-None value, resulting
in push_notifications_enabled() returning True for future tests.
The immediate fix is to just reset the `_apns_client` and
`_apns_client_initializedstate` state properly after the test runs;
but arguably we should do a larger refactor to make this less
fragile.
If a user deletes message between when it triggered a potential push
notification for another user, and when that notification was actually
sent, we'd end up with a situation where the `Message` table didn't
have an entry for the requested message ID.
The clean fix for this is to still throw an exception in the event
that the message doesn't exist at all, but if it exists in
ArchivedMessage, don't throw a user-facing exception.
While it could make sense to print these logging statements at WARN
level on server startup, it doesn't make sense to do so on every
message (though it perhaps did make sense to do so before more recent
changes added good ways to discover you forgot to configure push
notifications).
Instead, we now just do a WARN log on queue processor startup, and
then at DEBUG level for individual messages.
Fixes#10894.
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.
The APNS client libraries (especially the hyper.http20 one) were
determined via profiling to take significant time during the import
process, so we move them to be lazily imported in order to optimize
the overall Zulip import process. This save up to about 100ms in
import time.
These libraries are only used in certain Django processes inside
zulipchat.com, and so are unnecessary both in development as well as
for self-hosted Zulip servers.
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.
This uses the recently introduced active_mobile_push_notification
flag; messages that have had a mobile push notification sent will have
a removal push notification sent as soon as they are marked as read.
Note that this feature is behind a setting,
SEND_REMOVE_PUSH_NOTIFICATIONS, since the notification format is not
supported by the mobile apps yet, and we want to give a grace period
before we start sending notifications that appear as (null) to
clients. But the tracking logic to maintain the set of message IDs
with an active push notification runs unconditionally.
This is designed with at-least-once semantics; so mobile clients need
to handle the possibility that they receive duplicat requests to
remove a push notification.
We reuse the existing missedmessage_mobile_notifications queue
processor for the work, to avoid materially impacting the latency of
marking messages as read.
Fixes#7459, though we'll need to open a follow-up issue for
using these data on iOS.
This adds a new function called handle_remove_push_notification in
zerver/lib/push_notifications.py which requires user_profile id and
the message id which has to be removed in the function.
For now, the function only supports GCM (and is mostly there for
prototyping).
The payload which is being delivered needs to contain the narrow
information and the content of the message.
This should make it much simpler for the mobile apps to line up the
data from server_settings against the data in the notifications.
Addresses part of #10094.
We've had this sort of logic for GCM for a long time; it's worth
adding for APNS as well.
Writing this is a bit of a reminder that I'm not a fan of how our unit
tests for push notifications work.
This exception class was clearly missing the part where `role` gets
stored, which was intended to be inherited from
InvalidZulipServerError.
This fixes an unnecessary 500 error in the push notifications bouncer.
This field has been unused by clients for some time, and isn't great
for our public archive feature plans (where we'll not want to be
including email addresses in messages).
When the answer is False, this will allow the mobile app to show a
warning that push notifications will not work and the server admin
should set them up.
Based partly on Kunal's PR #7810. Provides the necessary backend API
for zulip/zulip-mobile#1507.
I got distracted, came back later to a successful test run in my
terminal, and thought I remembered finishing the change and just
kicking off a final test run to check.
In fact, there was an `assert False` right in the normal case for
production, and I just hadn't finished a test for that path. (m.-)
Definitely the most grateful I've been for our coverage checks,
which highlighted this for me.
Remove the `assert False`, and also finish writing the test it was
there to help me write. Those lines are covered now.
Previously, these push notification events were being generated, but
then ignored in handle_push_notification because there was no
user_message object.
Steve Howell
Tim Abbott
Mateusz Mandera
Rishi Gupta
Wyatt Hoodes
Rohitt Vashishtha
okmanl
Anders Kaseorg
Vishwesh Jainkuniya
Greg Price
Anders Kaseorg
kunal-mohta
ishanrai05
Jack Zhang
Kunal Gupta
Aditya Bansal
Preston Hansen
Alena Volkova
Vishnu Ks
rht