This commit is a step towards the goal of replacing most of the
send_future_email pathway with a call to send_email.
Note that this commit changes the default value of sender from "Zulip
<NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS>" to "NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS". NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS
will soon be changed to have the Zulip in front.
Note that the correctness of this commit relies on the fact that
send_future_email also sets the sender to settings.NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS by
default (in the body of the function).
Also puts them into a processing queue, though the queue processor
does nothing.
Rewritten by tabbott to avoid unnecessary database queries in
do_send_messages.
- Add new 'missedmessage_email_senders' queue for sending missed messages emails.
- Add the new worker to process 'missedmessage_email_senders' queue.
- Split aggregation missed messages and sending missed messages email
to separate queue workers.
- Adapt tests for sending missed emails to the new logic.
Fixes#2607
This feature hardcoded zulip.com, and never really made much sense
("feedback" should generally go to the local server administrator, not
to the Zulip development community).
This makes life a lot easier for people inviting users to a new Zulip
organization, since they can give some form of context now.
Modified by tabbott to clean up CSS, backend code flow, and improve
the formatting of the emails.
Fixes: #1409.
Our lists of rabbitmq queues was likely to end up out of date, since
there was nothing enforcing that the various lists of queues were
correct or the same as each other.
This significantly simplify the logic for our logging process, making
it the case that websockets message sending requests always are logged
as having the exact same client as a normal AJAX request from that
server.
A lot of care has been taken to ensure we're using the realm that the
message is being sent into, not the realm of the sender, to correctly
handle the logic for cross-realm bot users such as the notifications
bot.
Removes the dependence on postmonkey, which is a wrapper around
MailChimp API v1.3. MailChimp recommends using their v3.0 API directly,
rather than through a wrapper library.
Recent changes to the API removed Client.register(), and
this change restores the correct API call, although the
codepath this affects is probably ready for eventual
deprecation.
This change adds support for displaying inline open graph previews for
links posted into Zulip.
It is designed to interact correctly with message editing.
This adds the new settings.INLINE_URL_EMBED_PREVIEW setting to control
whether this feature is enabled.
By default, this setting is currently disabled, so that we can burn it
in for a bit before it impacts users more broadly.
Eventually, we may want to make this manageable via a (set of?)
per-realm settings. E.g. I can imagine a realm wanting to be able to
enable/disable it for certain URLs.
In fe1ba6f3eb, we change our auth
decorators etc. to use request.POST/request.GET rather than the (now
removed request.REQUEST). This broke sending messages via our
websockets codepath, because we failed to update the artificial
requests we generate to use request._post as well.
This adds a few new helpful context variables that we can use to
compute URLs in all of our templates:
* external_uri_scheme: http(s)://
* server_uri: The base URL for the server's canonical name
* realm_uri: The base URL for the user's realm
This is preparatory work for making realm_uri != server_uri when we
add support for subdomains.
response.content is binary data, but code usually assumes it to
be text. Fix this by decoding response.content where required.
Don't do this in tests yet.
This change drops the memory used for Python processes run by Zulip in
development from about 1GB to 300MB on my laptop.
On the front of safety, http://pika.readthedocs.org/en/latest/faq.html
explains "Pika does not have any notion of threading in the code. If
you want to use Pika with threading, make sure you have a Pika
connection per thread, created in that thread. It is not safe to share
one Pika connection across threads.". Since this code only connects
to rabbitmq inside the individual threads, I believe this should be
safe.
Progress towards #32.
