Fundamentally, we should take a write lock on the message, check its
validity for a change, and then make and commit that change.
Previously, `check_update_message` did not operate in a transaction,
but `do_update_message` did -- which led to the ordering:
- `check_update_message` reads Message, not in a transaction
- `check_update_message` verifies properties of the Message
- `do_update_message` starts a transaction
- `do_update_message` takes a read lock on UserMessage
- `do_update_message` writes on UserMessage
- `do_update_message` writes Message
- `do_update_message` commits
This leads to race conditions, where the `check_update_message` may
have verified based on stale data, and `do_update_message` may
improperly overwrite it; as well as deadlocks, where
other (properly-written) codepaths take a write lock on Message
_before_ updating UserMessage, and thus deadlock with
`do_update_message`.
Change `check_update_message` to open a transaction, and take the
write lock when first accessing the Message row. We update the
comment above `do_update_message` to clarify this expectation.
The new ordering is thus:
- `check_update_message` starts a transaction
- `check_update_message` takes a write lock on Message
- `check_update_message` verifies properties of the Message
- `do_update_message` writes on UserMessage
- `do_update_message` writes Message
- `check_update_message` commits
This commit completes the notifications part of the @topic
wildcard mention feature.
Notifications are sent to the topic participants for the
@topic wildcard mention.
This commit adds the 'topic_wildcard_mention_user_ids' and
'topic_wildcard_mention_in_followed_topic_user_ids'
attributes to the 'RecipientInfoResult' dataclass.
Only topic participants are notified of @topic mentions.
Topic participants are anyone who sent a message to a topic
or reacted to a message on the topic.
'topic_wildcard_mention_in_followed_topic_user_ids' stores the
ids of the topic participants who follow the topic and have
enabled the wildcard mention notifications for followed topics.
'topic_wildcard_mention_user_ids' stores the ids of the topic
participants for whom 'user_allows_notifications_in_StreamTopic'
with setting 'wildcard_mentions_notify' returns True.
This prep commit replaces the 'wildcard' keyword in the codebase
with 'stream_wildcard' at some places for better readability, as
we plan to introduce 'topic_wildcards' as a part of the
'@topic mention' project.
Currently, 'wildcards = ["all", "everyone", "stream"]' which is an
alias to mention everyone in the stream, hence better renamed as
'stream_wildcards'.
Eventually, we will have:
'stream_wildcard' as an alias to mention everyone in the stream.
'topic_wildcard' as an alias to mention everyone in the topic.
'wildcard' refers to 'stream_wildcard' and 'topic_wildcard' as a whole.
This commit adds backend code to check whether a user is allowed
to mention a user group while editing a message as per
can_mention_group setting of that group.
Fixes a part of #25927.
This commit makes it possible for users to control the wildcard
mention notifications for messages sent to followed topics
via a global notification setting.
There is no support for configuring this setting
through the UI yet.
This commit makes it possible for users to control
the push notifications for messages sent to followed topics
via a global notification setting.
There is no support for configuring this setting
through the UI yet.
This commit makes it possible for users to control
the email notifications for messages sent to followed topics
via a global notification setting.
Although there is no support for configuring this setting
through the UI yet.
Add five new fields to the UserBaseSettings class for
the "followed topic notifications" feature, similar to
stream notifications. But this commit consists only of
the implementation of email notifications.
The code for updating visibility policy values on moving messages
had two bugs.
- There was a typo in elif condition where "user_profile" was being
used instead of "user_profile_with_policy".
This commit fixes the typo.
- It was assumed that there would be no UserTopic rows for target
topic if the target topic didn't exist. But there can be such case
where some messages were sent to that topic and the user muted
the topic. But then the messages in that topic was deleted. In
such case there can be UserTopic rows for a stream-topic pair
that does not exist.
This commit fixes the code to handle such case as well and set
the visibility policy of new topic to what was set for the original
topic. This change simplifies the condition to just check whether
new_visibility_policy is equal to target_topic_visibility_policy
and skip if so, and update the visibility policy otherwise.
Due to this change, we now do not try to mute the already muted
topic if the topic is moved to a topic which didn't exist
previously and thus we modify the existing test to not expect
any INFO logs.
Doing so causes the "username resolved this topic" or "this topic was
moved by username" notifications to be attributed to a random user who
had a visibility policy on the topic.
This was previously called delete_event_notify_user_ids, which seemed
to narrow its purpose in a way that was confusing given that it's also
used for other calculations.
Further, calculate it as soon as we know it, not when we're first
going to use it.
This commit updates the logic for migrating user_topic rows
during the move-messages operation when the target topic
already has messages.
Previously, the target_topic's visibility_policy was simply
set to the original_topic's visibility_policy,
and the original_topic's visibility_policy was set to INHERIT.
This commit updates the move-messages code path to determine
the new visibility_policy depending on the visibility policies
of the original and target topics.
The target_topic's visibility_policy is then updated.
The number of db queries has increased by two:
One query corresponds to determining if 'target_topic_has_messages'.
Another query corresponds to 'get_users_with_user_topic_visibility_policy'
to determine 'target_topic_user_profile_to_visibility_policy'.
This commit refactors the move user_topic records
code block in 'do_update_message', resulting in
clean code.
We directly iterate over the dictionary items
instead of looping over the keys and fetching
values if the key exists.
We previously allowed moving messages that have passed the time limit
using "change_all" value for "propagate_mode" parameter. This commit
changes the behavior to not allow moving messages (both stream and
topic edit) that have passed the time limit for non-admin and
non-moderator users.
Previously, editing topic of "(no topic)" messages was allowed
irrespective of time limit or the "edit_topic_policy" setting.
Since we are working in the direction of having "no topic" messages
feel reasonable, this commit changes the code to not consider them
as a special case and topic editing restrictions apply to them as
well now like all other messages.
We still highlight the topic edit icon in recipient bar without
hovering for "no topic" messages, but it is only shown when user
has permission to edit topics.
Improve the Notification Bot by adding a hyperlink to the new location
of a moved single message. The link will make it easier for users to
find the message in its new context.
Fixes#24604.
This commit updates the move-topic codepath to perform
bulk database operations on the UserTopic record using
user_profiles for each visibility_policy instead of
previously looping over each user_profile one by one.
This commit updates the 'do_update_message' codepath to
update the UserTopic records regardless of visibility policy
during the "move-topic" operation.
This is required before offering new visibility policies
in the UI.
Previously, UserTopic records were moved or deleted only
for objects with a MUTED visibility policy.
Fixes: #24574
Previously, when a user moves a message to another topic, the Notification
bot will post a message saying "This topic was moved here from..." This is
confusing when the topic already contains messages. The changes aims to make
the messages more clear by changing the logic for the Notification bot. When
there is already messages in the topic, the bot will post "A message was
moved here from..." or "N messages were moved here from...". The bot will
post "This topic was moved here from (somewhere) by (someone)." when the
topic is empty.
Fixes#23267.
This commit updates 'set_user_topic_visibility_policy_in_database'
to not raise an error when deleting a UserTopic row and the user
doesn't have a visibility_policy for the topic yet, or when setting
the visibility_policy to its current value.
Also, it includes the changes to not send unnecessary events
in such cases.
Replaces 'do_unmute_topic' with 'do_set_user_topic_visibility_policy'
and associated minor changes.
This change is made to align with the plan to use a single function
'do_set_user_topic_visibility_policy' to manage
user_topic - visibility_policy changes and corresponding event
generation.
This commit is a step in the direction of having a common
function to handle visibility_policy changes and event
generation instead of separate functions for each
visibility policy.
In order to support different types of topic visibility policies,
this renames 'do_topic_mute' to 'do_set_user_topic_visibility_policy'
and refactors it to accept a parameter 'visibility_policy'.
This commit adds time restriction on moving messages between streams
using the move_messages_between_streams_limit_seconds setting in the
backend. There is no time limit for admins and moderators.
We now use the newly added move_messages_within_stream_limit_seconds
setting to check for how long the user can edit the topic replacing
the previously used 3-day limit. As it was previously, there is no
time limit for admins and moderators.
When 'resolve|unresolve' and 'move stream' actions occurs in
the same api call, 'This topic was marked as resolved|unresolved'
notification is not sent.
Both 'topic moved' and 'topic resolved' notification should be generated.
This commit updates the logic of when and where to send
'topic resolve|unresolve' notification. Unlike previous logic, notification
may be sent even in the case 'new_stream' is not None.
In general, 'topic resolved|unresolved' notification is sent to
'stream_being_edited'. In this particular case ('new_stream' is not None),
notification is sent to the 'new_stream' after check.
Test case is included.
Fixes: #22973
This commit renames "can_edit_topic_of_any_message" function
in models.py to "can_move_messages_to_another_topic" and
"user_can_edit_topic_of_any_message" function in settings_data.js
to "user_can_move_messages_to_another_topic".
This change is done since topic editing permission does not
depend on message sender now and messages are considered same
irrespective of whether the user who is editing the topic had sent
the message or not. This also makes the naming consistent with
what we use for the label of this setting in webapp and how we
describe this action in help documentation.
This commit changes the topic edit permssions to not depend whether the user
editing the message had sent the message or it was sent by someone else.
We only do backend changes in this commit and frontend changes will be done
in further commits.
Previously, we always allowed topic edits when the user themseleves had
sent the message not considering the edit_topic_policy and the 3-day time
limit. But now we consider all messages as same and editing is allowed only
according to edit_topic_policy setting and the time limit of 3 days in
addition for users who are not admins or moderators.
We change the topic and stream edit permssions to not depend on
allow_message_editing setting in the API and are allowed even
if allow_message_editing is set to False based on other settings
like edit_topic_policy and can_move_message_between_streams.
Fixes a part of #21739.
This solves the problem that resolving a topic with a long name (>60
characters) will cause the topic name to be truncated, and thus the edit
message code path thinks that the topic is being moved in addition to
being resolved.
We store the pre-truncation topic and use it to check against the
original topic when determining whether a topic is being moved while
getting (un)resovled or not.
Fixes#23482
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
We intended to send both the "topic was resolved" and the "topic was
moved here" notification when resolving and moving a topic at the same
time in #22312.
The previous implementation did not work as expected and it was only
sending the "topic was moved here" notification.
This removes the check for old_topic and new_topic that have
RESOLVED_TOPIC_PREFIX stripped in maybe_send_resolve_notifications, so
that the notification will be sent regardless if the topic name without
the prefix stays the same or not.
Note that weird topic handling ("✔ ✔✔ some topic") in the comments
was added in e231a03eff is unaffected. In case of confusion, the lstrip
check is not essential to detecting topic being unresolved/resolved.
As we mainly have that handled in the latter part of the helper.
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
Previously we did not send notification for topic-only edits.
Now, we add backend support for sending notification to topic-only
edits as well.
We would add support for this in webapp in further commits since
message edit UI will be updated as well. We just make sure that no
notifications are sent when editing topic using pencil icon in
message header.
We also change the API default for moving a topic to only notify the
new location, not the old one; this matches the current defaults in
the web UI.
Includes many tests.
We also update the puppeteer tests to test only content edit as
we are going to change the UI to not allow topic editing from
message edit UI. Also fixing the existing tests to pass while
doing topic edits is somewhat complex as notification message
is also sent to new topic by default.
Fixes#21712.
Co-authored-by: Aman Agrawal <amanagr@zulip.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@zulip.com>
This is preparatory commit for #18941.
Importing `do_delete_message` from `message_edit.py` was causing a
circular import error. In order to avoid that, we create a separate
message_delete.py file which has all the functions related to deleting
messages.
The tests for deleting messages are present in
`zerver/tests/test_message_edit.py`.
Fixes a part of #18941
This uses a more specific type `_StrPromise` to replace `Promise`
providing typing information for lazy translation strings.
In places where the callee evaluates the `_StrPromise` object in all
cases we simply force the evaluation with `str()`. This includes
`JsonableError` that ends up handled by the error handler middleware,
and `internal_send_stream_message` that depends on `check_stream_topic`,
requiring the `topic` to be evaluated anyway. In other siuations, the
callee is expected to be able to handle `StrPromise` explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
Whether we sent a resolve topic notification or not may be useful in
the caller. It was originally intended to be used in #21712, but may
only be relevant for future logging.
Part of #21712.
This will have no real effect in most situations. However, a user
moves a topic to another stream while also adding/removing the
resolved-topic checkmark from the topic name, then the "This topic was
resolved" notificaiton will now appear just before the "This topic was
moved" notification rather than just after.
This is likely slightly less confusing to users, since the topic
having been moved from somewhere else is likely the most salient fact
to a reader.
We expect to change things to not send both notifications in an
upcoming commit.
This refactoring helps with #21712.
This commit changes the code to consider zero as an invalid value for
message_content_edit_time_limit_seconds. Now to represent the setting that
user can edit the message anytime, the setting value will be "None" in
database and "unlimited" will be passed to API from clients.
We now send a new user_topic event while muting and unmuting topics.
fetch_initial_state_data now returns an additional user_topics array to
the client that will maintain the user-topic relationship data.
This will support any future addition of new features to modify the
relationship between a user-topic pair.
This commit adds the relevent backend code and schema for the new
event.
We separate the permission checks for content and topic edits
by changing the can_edit_topic_or_content to can_edit_topic
and use it only for checking topic edits and check content
edits separately in check_update_message itself. There is no
change in behavior as of this PR, there will be more changes
as per #21739.
This is a prep commit for #21739. The permission checks for
them are essentially separate except the one that message
sender is allowed to edit content and topic irresepctive of
edit_topic_policy setting, and this will too be changed in
future commit and so it will be better to have these checks
separate for readability.
We can also probably create a new function for checking content
edits but currently we only check the sender is same as the use
who is editing and it does not make sense to have a separate
function for just one check. We can do so in future in case we
do some more refactoring for #21739.
Alex Vandiver
Prakhar Pratyush
Sahil Batra
Tim Abbott
Akarsh Jain
Joelute
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Lauryn Menard
Anders Kaseorg
Zixuan James Li
Julia Bichler
madrix01
Kartik Srivastava