Without calling cov.erase() the data file seems to persist and even
pollute future test runs if not removed. Registering an atexit handler
seems like a good, and reasonably clean way to ensure the cleanup
happens.
Fixes#13933.
This allows us to collect coverage for Handlebars templates, and also
improves the readability of Handlebars-related stack traces.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
In Django 2.2 the autoreload system has changed.
DJANGO_AUTORELOAD_ENV env variable should be set when calling code
that'll use the autoreloader. Otherwise there's some kind of race
condition in the autoreload code when SIGINT is sent, where
restart_with_reloader() (called only if the env variable isn't set)
has the subprocess module calling p.kill() on a process that's already
exited, raising ProcessLookupError and printing an ugly traceback. This
causes non-deterministic test-run-dev failures.
We used to have a block of code doing this just in the presence
endpoint because that's where we'd had error-handling problems with it
not being present, but it seems more correct for it to run
unconditionally on all HTTP requests.
This requires adding a dependency of channel on reload_state, which we
record in the webpack configuration for now.
This should return us to a situation where we won't get blueslip
browser error reporting for users created while a device was offline
just before it reloads.
1) Created a new class `DatabaseType` and access its objects inside
`template_database_status()` instead of sending five arguments with
default values.
2) Made `check_files` and `setting_name` local variables instead of
function parameters since they had same value(None) for every call.
Fixes#13845.
webpack optimizes JSON modules using JSON.parse("{…}"), which is
faster than the normal JavaScript parser.
Update the backend to use emoji_codes.json too instead of the three
separate JSON files.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
I believe we can remove these and rely on
other parts of our testing/code-review
to ensure template quality.
These tests never really exercised our
app code, as evidenced by us not regressing
any of the 100%-line-coverage files.
We have a couple other ways that we verify
the correct format of the templates:
- webpack (can they compile?)
- check-templates (are they nicely indented?)
For deep testing, we have Casper, which
exercises most of our most important templates
in some meaningful way.
I think it's pretty rare that we get bugs
now that are directly caused by bad templates,
and an even smaller subset of them would
have been caught by the node tests.
If that trend changes in the future, I would prefer to
just do something "greenfield" to address
any common problems rather than resurrect
this code, but we could always resurrect it
from git.
The template node tests did check a little bit of
detail about which fields are there, but not
in an integrated way, so that aspect of the tests
wasn't very useful either.
This adds Ubuntu 19.10 as a valid provisioning target.
The release test in setup-apt-repo was changed from a list of values to
a regex check for brevity.
Every CLI program should have a usage message.
Also add a mention in the `push-to-pull-request` usage message of
its participation in the `refs/remotes/pr/` pseudo-remote feature.
This gives us the right behavior when using the `url.*.insteadOf`
mechanism for aliases in Git remote URLs. For example, if
one's ~/.gitconfig has:
[url "git@github.com:"]
insteadOf = gh:
then `git remote add upstream gh:zulip/zulip` will work great, as
the nice, short, mnemonic `gh:` prefix gets expanded to the more
finicky `git@github.com:`. I use just such a prefix routinely.
But the feature does require that scripts go through the right
abstractions. In particular `git remote get-url`, since Git 2.7
(from 2016), exists for exactly this reason. A plain `git config`
command bypasses the expansion, getting the verbatim `gh:...`
version, which doesn't work.
So, switch to that.
As a bonus, we get to behave correctly if for some reason the user
has configured a push URL distinct from the fetch URL for this
remote, just by adding `--push`. With `git config`, we'd have had
to manually implement the fallback from `remote.upstream.pushUrl` to
`remote.upstream.url` in order to properly handle that case.
We prefer this to internal_send_message().
We are trying to deprecate `internal_send_message`,
which has extra moving parts related to
`extract_recipients` and `Addressee.legacy_build`.
There are two chunks of code that I touch here
that look pretty similar, but I'm not quite
sure they're worth de-duplicating, since they
use different topics and different message
content.
Instead of having `notify_new_user` delegate
all the heavy lifting to `send_signup_message`,
we just rename `send_signup_message` to be
`notify_new_user` and remove the one-line
wrapper.
We remove a lot of obsolete complexity:
- `internal` was no longer ever set to True
by real code, so we kill it off as well
as well as killing off the internal_blurb code
and the now-obsolete test
- the `sender` parameter was actually an
email, not a UserProfile, but I think
that got past mypy due to the caller
passing in something from settings.py
- we were only passing in NOTIFICATION_BOT
for the sender, so we just hard code
that now
- we eliminate the verbose
`admin_realm_signup_notifications_stream`
parameter and just hard code it to
"signups"
- we weren't using the optional realm
parameter
There's also a long ugly comment in
`get_recipient_info` related to this code
that I amended for now.
We should try to take action in a subsequent
commit.
We now have 100% line coverage on 71 JS files.
This is thanks to about 150 people who have
contributed code to frontend/node_tests.
And then 126 files are still short of 100% line
coverage.
We now enforce line coverage with a set called
EXEMPT_FILES, which are the files for which
we do NOT expect to have 100% coverage.
Using an exemption list makes it so that adding
a new JS file to the project without 100% line
coverage will cause the build to fail. This will
encourage folks to be intentional about their
lack of test coverage.
If a file that had 100% coverage somehow regressed
to 0% coverage, we would report an error to the
console, but we weren't treating it as an actual
failure.
We've probably always had this bug, but it probably
rarely was an issue, since devs might have seen
the error locally, or hopefully whatever crazy
thing you did to totally remove coverage would
have had other symptoms.
If this was intentional, I suspect it might have
had something to do with wanting to get coverage
reports when you just run individual tests. But
a while back we changed it so that when you run
individual tests, we don't do the line coverage
enforcement.
My upstream remote is named origin, so commit-message-lint was always
complaining at me. Detect the right remote name from the output of
`git remote -v`.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
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.
This legacy cross-realm bot hasn't been used in several years, as far
as I know. If we wanted to re-introduce it, I'd want to implement it
as an embedded bot using those common APIs, rather than the totally
custom hacky code used for it that involves unnecessary queue workers
and similar details.
Fixes#13533.
responses is an module analogous to httpretty for mocking external
URLs, with a very similar interface (potentially cleaner in that it
makes use of context managers).
The most important (in the moment) problem with httpretty is that it
breaks the ability to use redis in parts of code where httpretty is
enabled. From more research, the module in general has tendency to
have various troublesome bugs with breaking URLs that it shouldn't be
affecting, caused by it working at the socket interface layer. While
those issues could be fixed, responses seems to be less buggy (based
on both third-party reports like ckan/ckan#4755 and our own experience
in removing workarounds for bugs in httpretty) and is more actively
maintained.
In this commit, we basically match any kinda of jinja2 start tag,
no matter its special kind (eg. jinja2_whitespace_stripped_start)
to any kinda jinja2 end tag (eg. jinja2_whitespace_stripped_end)
Idea is special operators like `-` do not change the meaning of
inline tag and thus matching shouldn't depend upon this.
Zulip has had a small use of WebSockets (specifically, for the code
path of sending messages, via the webapp only) since ~2013. We
originally added this use of WebSockets in the hope that the latency
benefits of doing so would allow us to avoid implementing a markdown
local echo; they were not. Further, HTTP/2 may have eliminated the
latency difference we hoped to exploit by using WebSockets in any
case.
While we’d originally imagined using WebSockets for other endpoints,
there was never a good justification for moving more components to the
WebSockets system.
This WebSockets code path had a lot of downsides/complexity,
including:
* The messy hack involving constructing an emulated request object to
hook into doing Django requests.
* The `message_senders` queue processor system, which increases RAM
needs and must be provisioned independently from the rest of the
server).
* A duplicate check_send_receive_time Nagios test specific to
WebSockets.
* The requirement for users to have their firewalls/NATs allow
WebSocket connections, and a setting to disable them for networks
where WebSockets don’t work.
* Dependencies on the SockJS family of libraries, which has at times
been poorly maintained, and periodically throws random JavaScript
exceptions in our production environments without a deep enough
traceback to effectively investigate.
* A total of about 1600 lines of our code related to the feature.
* Increased load on the Tornado system, especially around a Zulip
server restart, and especially for large installations like
zulipchat.com, resulting in extra delay before messages can be sent
again.
As detailed in
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/pull/12862#issuecomment-536152397, it
appears that removing WebSockets moderately increases the time it
takes for the `send_message` API query to return from the server, but
does not significantly change the time between when a message is sent
and when it is received by clients. We don’t understand the reason
for that change (suggesting the possibility of a measurement error),
and even if it is a real change, we consider that potential small
latency regression to be acceptable.
If we later want WebSockets, we’ll likely want to just use Django
Channels.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
I added this tool a few years ago, and I did have
a vision for how it would improve our codebase, but
I can't remember exactly where I was going with it.
At this point the tool is just a little too noisy
to be helpful. An example of it creating confusion
was a recent PR where somebody was patching
user_circle_class in the PM list, and we already
had similar code in the buddy list, because they
use the same CSS. I mean, there was possibly a way
that the code could have been structured to remove
some of the duplication, but it probably would have
just moved the complexity around.
I just don't think it's worth maintaining the tool
at this point.
This experimental setting disables sending private messages in Zulip
in a crude way (i.e. users get an error when they try to send one).
It makes no effort to adjust the UI to avoid advertising the idea of
sending private messages.
Fixes#6617.
Addresses point 1 of #13533.
MissedMessageEmailAddress objects get tied to the specific that was
missed by the user. A useful benefit of that is that email message sent
to that address will handle topic changes - if the message that was
missed gets its topic changed, the email response will get posted under
the new topic, while in the old model it would get posted under the
old topic, which could potentially be confusing.
Migrating redis data to this new model is a bit tricky, so the migration
code has comments explaining some of the compromises made there, and
test_migrations.py tests handling of the various possible cases that
could arise.
This test mostly tests logic that I'm about
to remove in subsequent commits, and it's a bit
messy.
This commit removes 100% line coverage, but I
will restore that a few commits later.
Mateusz Mandera
Anders Kaseorg
Vishnu KS
Tim Abbott
Hashir Sarwar
Steve Howell
Chris Heald
Greg Price
Aditya Bansal
rht