When a user toggles a setting back to its original value without
saving, we automatically hide the save/discard widget, since
effectively the user has discarded their changes.
The logic has previously incorrectly configured this as returning to
the "saved" state, not the "discarded" state, which caused an
unintentional delay before the widget disappeared (by accidentally
running code that was designed for the save -> saved transition).
While doing this I have fixed a very minor bug that we haven't sent
fadeout_delay argument as 0, but having its value as undefined still
defaults to 0 so there will no impact of this change.
Fixes: #12258.
This is in series of refactoring of code for realm logo settings.
Further, we will remove ids from the template as well and simply use
general classes (.day-settings and .night-settings) to identify to which
theme-mode particular element belongs i.e. day or night as we did in this
change.
- These ids will further be used to represent each section concisely and
deduplicating code.
- Also, removed `realm-night-logo-section` class as it was redundant.
One occasionally finds that a 1580 character string of SQL queries
might not most readably be presented on a single line.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
One needs to explicitly request zulip::base, it appears. Ideally,
we'd just have every ruleset depend on zulip::base, but I seem to
recall Puppet didn't like your including the same module from multiple
places. Worth testing as a follow-up investigation.
This was missed because we use the zulip_ops rules internally, which
include zulip::base via zulip_ops::base.
Send the config_options for each supported incoming webhook bot along
with the initial state (not present in apply_events since this is
mostly just static data).
Without disturbing the flow of the existing code for configuring
embedded bots too much, we now use the config_options feature to
allow incoming webhook type bot to be configured via. the "/bots"
endpoint of the API.
This is a prep commit to allow us to validate user provided bot
config data using the same function for incoming webhook type
bots alongside embedded bots (as opposed to creating a new
function just for incoming webhook bots).
In integrations.py we have a class called Integration which we then usually
subclass and then use to define the meta-data for all of our integrations.
Now, we want to allow all of our bots, specifically incoming webhook bots,
to be configured (i.e. we should let the user provide BotConfigData).
For this we create a new instance member of the Integration class called
config_options which will be a list of tuples containing the displayable
integration name, the configuration key form of the integration name and
the validator that it's value is supposed to adhere to.
This was used as a helper to construct the final display_recipient when
fetching messages. With the new mechanism of constructing
display_recipient by fetching appropriate users/streams from the
database and cache, this shouldn't be needed anymore.
There is no need to fetch the entire Stream or UserProfile objects, as
only several fields are needed. We use Django's .values() method to only
get what's needed.
For UserProfiles, it means that we get from the queries are dictionaries
already in the display_recipient form (UserDisplayRecipient type) - so
we can remove the user_profile_to_display_recipient_dict function, as
there's no need for this UserProfile -> UserDisplayRecipient conversion
anymore.
Instead of having the rather unclear type Union[str,
List[UserDisplayRecipient]] where display_recipient of message dicts was
involved, we use DisplayRecipientT (renamed from DisplayRecipientCacheT
- since there wasn't much reason to have the word Cache in there), which
makes it clearer what is the actual nature of the objects and gets rid
of this pretty big type declaration.
Since the display_recipients dictionaries corresponding to users are
always dictionaries with keys email, full_name, short_name, id,
is_mirror_dummy - instead of using the overly general Dict[str, Any]
type, we can define a UserDisplayRecipient type,
using an appropriate TypedDict.
The type definitions are moved from display_recipient.py to types.py, so
that they can be imported in models.py.
Appropriate type adjustments are made in various places in the code
where we operate on display_recipients.
The user information in display_recipient in cached message_dicts
becomes outdated if the information is changed in any way.
In particular, since we don't have a way to find all the message
objects that might contain PMs after an organization toggles the
setting to hide user email addresses from other users, we had a
situation where client might see inaccurate cached data from before
the transition for a period of up to hours.
We address this by using our generic_bulk_cached_fetch toolchain to
ensure we always are fetching display_recipient data from the database
(and/or a special recipient_id -> display_recipient cache, which we
can flush easily).
Fixes#12818.
It's not clear to me how this is intended to work in Mattermost's
system in that they don't document this behavior, but some users have
`null` as their list of teams, and presumably are not meant to be
included in any team at all.
This restructures the API endpoints that we currently have implemented
more or less for exclusive use by the mobile and desktop apps (things
like checking what authentication methods are supported) to use a
system that can be effectively parsed by our test_openapi
documentation.
This brings us close to being able to eliminate
`buggy_documentation_endpoints` as a persistently nonempty list.
This add some regular expression manipulation hacks to make it
possible for us to validate the documentation for the presence
endpoint with a slightly more complex regular expression capture
group.
Previously, our OpenAPI documentation validation was failing for some
endpoints because it didn't account for the `in: path` type of
parameter, resulting in a mismatch between what was declared via REQ
and what was declared in the OpenAPI docs.
We fix this by excluding the path type parameters in both places from
what's considered by documentation using the `path_only` flag.
I doubt this is the correct long-term fix; in particular, I don't
think we're actually running the validators for these path-only
parameters. The examples that exist today are all IDs with validators
for being non-negative numbers, but longer-term I think we'll want to
do something different (possibly at the REQ layer, see the TODO).
Atlassian announced that it will no longer provide information about
comments along with their "issue" type event payloads for Jira. So
we must now update the Jira integration to appropriately respond to
"comment" type events (the reason why we didn't do this before was
that initially, the "comment" type event payloads didn't contain
sufficient information about their issues, but this payload has
since been improved).
Note: This commit does *not* remove support for the older "issue"
type event payloads where information about comments was included.
This way we can maintain compatibility with old self-hosted versions
of self hosted Jira (2016 and before).
Source:
https://developer.atlassian.com/cloud/jira/platform/change-notice-
removal-of-comments-from-issue-webhooks/
Fixes#13012
Pragati Agrawal
Rohitt Vashishtha
Wyatt Hoodes
Alex Dehnert
Tim Abbott
Anders Kaseorg
Hemanth V. Alluri
Mateusz Mandera
Vaibhav
Vishnu Ks