This commits improves how we handle <a> tags within the navbar
description. The code previously overlaid click regions on top of each
other, which was messy and probably somehow buggy.
It is cleaner if we just check if the click was on an <a> tag or not.
* This feature is currently only visible to admins.
* Locally echoed messages are also updated.
* Add UI for editing stream if user is admin.
* Show propagate mode selector if either stream or topic changed.
We use this new widget in bot settings panels
(personal and org). It lets you re-assign a
bot to a new human user.
Ideally we can improve this code to use
our existing list widgets to make it more
performant for realms with lots of users.
We no longer use `/json/users` in the codepath
for bot settings (admin side).
We also specifically don't load human users when
we load bots, so you no longer have to pay for
the server round trip as a side effect of loading
bots. Instead, there is a dedicated `set_up_bots`
entry point.
We also get the bot ids directly from `bot_data` now.
This commit, to some degree, builds on the prior commit
that had us hydrate data from `people.js` instead
of the payload from `/json/users`.
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 want to move toward having list consumers
pass us in a list of ids that we hydrate later
in the process. This should help live-update
scenarios. The next commit will describe the
benefits in a bit more detail, using the
concrete example of our bot settings table
in the org settings.
A slightly longer-term goal here is to be
able to ask `list_render` to re-render a particular
id, and this moves us closer to that. But even
before that, this change should eliminate a class
of bugs dealing with stale data, such as when
you manually patch a list (with direct jQuery
hacks) but then later go to sort/filter the rows.
We will now re-hydrate the items in those scenarios.
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.
For the below payloads we want `owner_id` instead
of `owner`, which we should deprecate. (The
`owner` field is actually an email, which is
not a stable key.)
page_params.realm_bots
realm_bot/add
realm_bot/update
IMPORTANT NOTE: Some of the data served in
these payloads is cached with the key
`bot_dicts_in_realm_cache_key`.
For page_params, we get the new field
via `get_owned_bot_dicts`.
For realm_bot/add, we modified
`created_bot_event`.
For realm_bot/update, we modified
`do_change_bot_owner`.
On the JS side, we no longer
look up the bot's owner directly in
`server_events_dispatch` when we get
a realm_bot/update event. Instead, we
delegate that job to `bot_data.js`.
I modified the tests accordingly.
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.
Instead of taking a subsection option and calling the settings_org
function to update that subsection, we now take a callback function
as on_update. Also, we now store the value initial value of the
widget in opts.value instead of reading again from page_params.
These changes allow us to use this widget outside of settings_org
and for values other than settings that are in page_params.
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
Since production testing of `message_retention_days` is finished, we can
enable this feature in the organization settings page. We already had this
setting in frontend but it was bit rotten and not rendered in templates.
Here we replaced our past text-input based setting with a
dropdown-with-text-input setting approach which is more consistent with our
existing UI.
Along with frontend changes, we also incorporated a backend change to
handle making retention period forever. This change introduces a new
convertor `to_positive_or_allowed_int` which only allows positive integers
and an allowed value for settings like `message_retention_days` which can
be a positive integer or has the value `Realm.RETAIN_MESSAGE_FOREVER` when
we change the setting to retain message forever.
This change made `to_not_negative_int_or_none` redundant so removed it as
well.
Fixes: #14854
It's a preliminary step to enable message_retention_setting in org settings
UI, which is a non-limited plan only feature. So we require a page_param
property that tells us the limited-plan state of the Zulip realm.
This change makes `.get_input_element_value()` return a `undefined` instead
of `null` when `input_type` is not defined. Which also make sense
logically, as
> null: absence of value for a variable;
> undefined: absence of variable itself;
Source: https://stackoverflow.com/q/5076944/7418550
In our recent navbar changes, we made it so that the
Esc key auto-closed the navbar. Unfortunately,
that code would break other typeaheads with a traceback.
One user-facing symptom was that if you drafted a PM
and started a typeahead on a recipient, then hitting
the Esc key wouldn't close the typeahead.
Now we use an `on_escape` mechanism that is specific
to the navbar typeahead, so that it's both generic and
harder to break for widgets that don't opt in to it.
See bbdc66a214 for
more details on the commit that introduced this
regression.
Note that I only call `tab_bar.exit_search` now.
I don't check the class name of the input element,
since I know that the Esc key is happening in the
context of search. And I don't blur the input,
since it's going to be hidden.
We were creating errors for task keys that were
from older versions of the widget. We don't migrate
data for the widgets yet (they're all still considered
to be somewhat beta); instead, we just drop bad data
on the floor.
Rohitt and I re-tested the widget on czo pretty
extensively to verify that these errors don't show
up for newly created widgets.
The click handler for closing stream settings in click_handlers.js
is removed as overlays.js contains common logic for closing all
overlays.
'exports.close' in subs.js is removed and 'hashchange.exit_overlay'
is used in 'overlays.open_overlay' call.
This completes the implementation of support for moving a topic to
another stream by adding a basic UI for it.
Fixes#6427, which was previously the most-upvoted issue request in
Zulip.
There are likely to be a bunch of follow-up UI improvements on top of
this change to fully flesh out the feature.
For privacy-minded folks who don't want to leak the
information of whether they're online, this adds an
option to disable sending presence updates to other
users.
The new settings lies in the "Other notification
settings" section of the "Notification settings"
page, under a "Presence" subheading.
Closes#14798.
This adds a way to keep track of max_message_id of a
stream and fetch it using the method get_max_message_id().
This will be useful for sorting streams by most recent
activity which will be implemented in the upcoming commit.
Essentially rewritten by tabbott to have a coherent tracking system,
and provide documentation.
Part of #10794.
Member of the org can able see list of invitations sent by him/her.
given permission for the member to revoke and resend the invitations
sent by him/her and added tests for test member can revoke and resend
the invitations only sent by him/her.
Fixes#14007.
This does not rely on the desktop app being able to register for the
zulip:// scheme (which is problematic with, for example, the AppImage
format).
It also is a better interface for managing changes to the system,
since the implementation exists almost entirely in the server/webapp
project.
This provides a smoother user experience, where the user doesn't need
to do the paste step, when combined with
https://github.com/zulip/zulip-desktop/pull/943.
Fixes#13613.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
