Our `list_render` list widget gives us the
option to use ids as our "list" and then
hydrate that list on-demand with an
`opts.get_item` function.
We now use that for the bots list, passing
in `bot_info` as that option.
And, importantly, we are now actually
hydrating the bot data from `bot_data.js`
data structures, and not `/json/bots`.
Using the `get_item` scheme has a couple
benefits:
- Our sort functions are based on the
actual items that we use to build the
template, so there's a bit less
code duplication. (Generally, the
data that we pass in to the template
is "finalized" in some sense, such
as the bot owner name.)
- We are less likely to display stale
data.
- We are less likely to wire up filters
to intermediate data elements that are
not actually displayed to users (think
of email vs. delivery_email).
We do rely on `get_item` (i.e. `bot_info`)
to be inexpensive, which it should be.
Note that we haven't completely decoupled
ourselves from `/json/bots`, which we still
use as our source for bot user_ids. We will
fix that in the next commit.
We don't really need to know whether we've loaded
the user-related panels, since we only used `meta.loaded`
for a tiny optimization to avoid a jQuery lookup.
We rely mostly on the list widgets from `list_render`,
and they are smart enough to repopulate themselves
when they're called subsequent times.
This fixes the fact that we update the bot table
with the owner's email instead of a name, but as
the TODO indicates, this is not a full fix, since
I don't linkify the owner name.
To do the full fix properly, I want to make it
so that the `list_render` widgets can just be given
an id of a row to update, and that's coming soon,
hopefully. If I get sidetracked, the ugly ways to
do this are one of the following:
- just duplicate what the template does in
jQuery
- extract a partial to draw the bot owner link
The full solution here should fix ALL the live
update code in `update_user_data`, which is why
I'm hesitant to add any interim complexity.
This is just a lexical change. We are going
to use some shared code soon that we don't want
to export, and if `update_user_data()` is
declared too early in the file, then the function
we extract will either need to be exported (to
satisy the linter) or placed far away from its
most natural siblings.
We will use this for a patch to the live-update
code, and it also de-clutters `bot_info`.
This function could plausibly live in `people.js`,
but it's not worth the indirection at this time,
and, also, one of the upcoming callers to the
function will only temporarily need it.
There's a little bit of a chicken/egg problem
going on:
- It's hard to have nice system-wide
APIs related to bots while bot settings
are still in flux.
- It's hard to clean up the bot settings
code while the system-wide API is still
kinda messy.
But I'm making slow progress on that front.
We now no longer have to remember that
`is_guest` is on `user` but `is_current_user`
is in `..`.
And we no longer have to remember that
`full_name` is on `user` but `display_email`
is in `..`.
We now gather all the bot info in one place, rather
than grabbing some of it during the triage phase and
then some of it later.
We also explicitly copy over the fields that we
need for the template, in preparation for two
efforts:
- We want to get data from `people.js` and
avoid the round trip to `<server>/json/users`.
- We want to simplify the template by
flattening our data. (It's really somewhat
arbitrary whether `is_admin` is a calculated
value, for example, but we currently leak
that implementation detail to the template.)
We can't flatten this data quite yet, since we
share the same template for bot users as human users,
so we'll fix the human data in a bit.
We now close on status_field in our event handlers,
so that there's no chance of writing to the wrong
status field if somebody switches panels before
we have a status to report.
We can't eliminate `get_status_field` yet, but that
will go away in a future commit.
We now create the event handlers directly in
`set_up()`, and we explicitly tie them to
each of the three tables.
The goal here is to allow us to set up
the three tables individually, and this gets
us closer to that goal.
This is a purely lexical move (apart from changing
a closure variable to an argument), which is
simply designed to make less indentation for the
reader and to de-clutter `handle_human_form`.
When editing a bot, there are only two fields
that are similar to humans--full name and
email--which are trivial.
Before this commit we used a single codepath
to build the human form and the bot form.
Now we have two simple codepaths.
The tricky nature of the code had already led
to ugly things for the bot codepath that
fortunately weren't user facing, but which
were distracting:
- For bots we would needlessly set things
like is_admin, is_guest in the template
data.
- For bots we would needlessly try to update
custom profile fields.
The code that differs between bots and humans
is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read
and hard to improve:
- Humans don't have bot owners.
- Bots don't have custom profile fields.
The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance
reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands
of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious
performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple
copies of the dropdown), but we may still want
to refine that (at least adding a spinner).
The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due
to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields,
which can bring in specialized widgets like
pill fields.
Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint:
* human -> /json/users
* bot -> /json/bots
Before we had a lot of conditional logic in
the template, the code to build to views, and
the code to submit the data. Now everything is
much flatter.
The human code is still a bit messy (more work
coming on that), but the bot code is fairly
pristine. All three components of the bot code
fit on a page, and there are no conditionals:
- admin_bot_form.hbs
- open_bot_form
- handle_bot_form
We may want to grow out the bot code a bit
to allow admins to do more things, such as
adding services, and this will be easier now.
It would also be easier for us now to share
widgets with the per-user bot settings.
Note that the form for editing human data will
continue to be invoked from two panels:
- Users
- Deactivated users
There are some minor differences between
users and deactivated users, but the shape of
the data is the same for both, so that's still
all one codepath.
We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since
it was never used.
One nice thing about these forms was that they
had very little custom CSS attached to them
(at form-level specificity), and it turned out
all the custom CSS was for the human-specific
form.
This is purely refactoring.
The new call tree is:
on_load_success
populate_users
handle_deactivation
handle_reactivation
handle_user_form
handle_bot_owner_profile
handle_bot_deactivation
The actual sequence of operations should be
identical to before.
When reading the calling code, it's helpful to know
that we're really just passing in a selector. The
calls to open_modal/close_modal are nicer now to
reconcile with surrounding code, and you don't have
to guess whether the parameter is some kind of
"key" value--it really just refers directly to a DOM
element.
There is nothing user-visible about this change, but
the blueslip info messages now include the hash:
open modal: open #change_email_modal
1. Replaced the deactivate and reactivate buttons with icons.
2. Added (you) near the current user name to denote his/her account in
the entire user list.
Tweaked by tabbott to reuse the (you) formatting from the right
sidebar here for readability and consistency.
Fixes#6313.
The original commit here was sorting bot owners by
id, which is of course meaningless to users:
444ce74a8e
It was also returning 1/-1 in cases where the bot
owner on both sides of a comparison were missing,
which is a big no-no for sorting algorithms.
We want to avoid creating jQuery objects that just
get turned right back into strings by the list
widget, so we now have our template just include
`last_active_date` instead of kludging it in
after the fact, and we return the template
string in `modifier` rather than wrapping it.
To deal with plain HTML we switch to using
`render_now`.
Calling `render_now` leads to a more simple
codepath than `render_date`, beyond just dealing
with text.
The `render_date` function has special-case logic
that only applies to our time dividers in our
message view, which is why we were passing the
strange `undefined` parameter to it before this
fix.
The `render_date` function was also putting
the dates into `update_list` for once-a-day
updates, which is overkill for an admin screen.
We don't use this logic for drafts or attachments
either. I'm not sure how well tested that logic
is, and it's prone to slow leaks.
This commit sets us up to simplify the list
widget not to have bit-rot-prone code related
to jQuery objects.
We now:
- Skip the broken "Never" case. (The way
we were distinguishing "Unknown" from
"Never" was based on brittle checks that
were just wrong due to bitrot--see Steve
Shank on czo as an example. If we want
to make this distinction rigorous in the
future, we should have a clear mechanism.
If somebody's never actually been active,
we probably want to treat that more like
a dead-on-arrival login, anyway, and make
it easy to clean them up.)
- Use the `presence.last_active_date` instead
of reaching into private data structures.
- Avoid the unnecessary intermediate constants
of LAST_ACTIVE_NEVER and LAST_ACTIVE_UNKOWN.
- Avoid setting `last_active` in `populate_users`.
This commit was modified by @showell:
- I cleaned up the commit message.
- I simplified the diff a bit to avoid
some renaming and lexical moves.
For some widgets we now avoid duplicate redraw
events from this old pattern:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
}).init();
widget.sort(...);
The above code was wasteful and possibly
flicker-y due to the fact that `init` and
`sort` both render.
Now we do this:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
init_sort: [...],
});
For other widgets we just clean up the need
to call `init()` right after `create()`.
We also allow widgets to pass in `sort_fields`
during initialization (since you may want to
have `init_sort` use a custom sort before the
first render.)
Finally, we make the second and third calls
eliminate the prior updates from the previous
widget. This can prevent strange bugs with
double-reversing columns (although that's
been prevented in a better way with a recent
commit), as well as avoiding double work
with sorting.
I pushed this risk commit to the end of
a PR that had a bunch of harmless prep
commits at the front, and I didn't make
it clear enough that the last commit (this
one) hadn't been tested thoroughly.
For the list_render widget, we can simplify
the intialization pretty easily (avoid
extra sorts, for example), but the cache aspects
are still tricky on subsequent calls.
For some widgets we now avoid duplicate redraw
events from this old pattern:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
}).init();
widget.sort(...);
The above code was wasteful and possibly
flicker-y due to the fact that `init` and
`sort` both render.
Now we do this:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
init_sort: [...],
});
For other widgets we just clean up the need
to call `init()` right after `create()`.
We also allow widgets to pass in `sort_fields`
during initialization (since you may want to
have `init_sort` use a custom sort before the
first render.)
Giving these functions a name and moving them to
the top-level scope has a couple tactical advantages:
- names show in tracebacks
- code is less indented
- setup code is less cluttered
- will be easier to add unit tests
- will make some upcoming diffs nicer
These are technically more `compare_foo` than `sort_foo`,
but we already had a naming convention that was sort of
in place.
Clicking on the 'Owner' value for a row in the list of bots does
nothing, and causes a blueslip error.
This is because the map object in which we store the users have
integer keys, while we pass the owner id as string.
This is fixed by parsing the owner id to integer before passing it
on.
Fixes#14107.
This extracts a new module with three
functions, which we will test with 100%
line coverage:
- show_email
- email_for_user_settings
- get_time_preferences
The first two break several dependencies
in the codebase on `settings_org.js`. The
`get_time_preferences` breaks an annoying
dependency on `page_params` within people.
The module is pretty cohesive, in terms that
all three functions are just light wrappers
around `page_params` and/or `settings_config`.
Now all the modules that want to call show_email()
only have to require `settings_data`, instead of
having a dependency on the much heavier
`settings_org.js` module.
I also make some of the unit tests here be more
full-stack, where instead of stubbing show_email,
I basically just toggle `page_params.is_admin`.
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.
This change sets us up to optimize how we
filter users in the admin user settings.
See #13554 for more context on the user
facing issues.
This fix is basically three related things:
- Add filterer options to list_render.
- Add helper method to people.js.
- Use filterer in settings_users.js.
The filter "callback" was only a "callback" in the
most general sense of the word.
It's just a filter predicate that returns a bool.
This is to prepare for another filtering option,
where the caller can filter the whole list
themselves. I haven't figured out what I will name
the new option yet, but I know I want to make the
two options have specific names.
This fixes the error where we pass `user_id` of 'string' type as the
argument instead of 'integer' to `exports.get_person_from_user_id` which
further passes `user_id` to InDict.has() function which accepts integer
argument only.
We want to be able to unit test this value,
since it's conditional on several factors:
- am I an admin?
- can non-admins view emails?
- do we have delivery_email for the user?
I'm mocking show_email in the tests, since the
show_email code is in `settings_org` and
kind of hard to unit test. It's not impossible,
but it's too much for this commit. (Either
we need to extract it out to a nice file or
deal with mocking jQuery. That module is
mostly data-oriented, so it would be nice
to have something like `settings_config` that
is actually pure data.)
This was duplicate code. I'm moving it to people
for pragmatic reasons--it's hard to unit test stuff
in settings_users.js due to all the jQuery.
It's also nice to have all people-related search
code in one place, just for auditing purposes.
It appears c28c3015 caused a regression where we
set `email` to undefined if a user does not have
`delivery_email` set, and this causes filtering
of users to fail for admins doing user settings.
This fixes only one of the issues reported in
issue #13554.
There's probably no easy fix to scrolling taking
long, but I think fixing search will mostly
address that complaint.
The Rust folks seem to agree with me that the
search results are too noisy. If I search for
"s" I get:
* names like Steve (good)
* names like Jesse (noisy)
* anybody with s in their email (super noisy)
Here is the relevant code:
return (
item.full_name.toLowerCase().indexOf(value) >= 0 ||
email.toLowerCase().indexOf(value) >= 0
);
This fixes two regressions in 1946692f9a.
The first bug was actually introduced much earlier, namely that we
were not sending a `bot_owner_id` field at all for bot users without
an owner. The correct behavior would have been send `None` for the
owner field.
The second bug was simply that we needed to update the webapp to look
for the `bot_owner_id` field, rather than an old email-address format
`bot_owner` field.
Thanks to Vinit Singh for reporting this bug.
Steve Howell
Steve Howell
Jagan
sahil839
Stefan Weil
Tim Abbott
Anders Kaseorg
Pragati Agrawal
Gaurav Thapar