Bots are not allowed to use the same name as
other users in the realm (either bot or human).
This is kind of a big commit, but I wanted to
combine the post/patch (aka add/edit) checks
into one commit, since it's a change in policy
that affects both codepaths.
A lot of the noise is in tests. We had good
coverage on the previous code, including some places
like event testing where we were expediently
not bothering to use different names for
different bots in some longer tests. And then
of course I test some new scenarios that are relevant
with the new policy.
There are two new functions:
check_bot_name_available:
very simple Django query
check_change_bot_full_name:
this diverges from the 3-line
check_change_full_name, where the latter
is still used for the "humans" use case
And then we just call those in appropriate places.
Note that there is still a loophole here
where you can get two bots with the same
name if you reactivate a bot named Fred
that was inactive when the second bot named
Fred was created. Also, we don't attempt
to fix historical data. So this commit
shouldn't be considered any kind of lockdown,
it's just meant to help people from
inadvertently creating two bots of the same
name where they don't intend to. For more
context, we are continuing to allow two
human users in the same realm to have the
same full name, and our code should generally
be tolerant of that possibility. (A good
example is our new mention syntax, which disambiguates
same-named people using ids.)
It's also worth noting that our web app client
doesn't try to scrub full_name from its payload in
situations where the user has actually only modified other
fields in the "Edit bot" UI. Starting here
we just handle this on the server, since it's
easy to fix there, and even if we fixed it in the web
app, there's no guarantee that other clients won't be
just as brute force. It wasn't exactly broken before,
but we'd needlessly write rows to audit tables.
Fixes#10509
We could migrate all the current PREMIUM_FREE organizations to have more
invites, but this setting mainly affects orgs right as they are starting, so
it's probably fine.
We use UserMessageLite to avoid Django overhead, and we
do updates in chunks of 10000. (The export may be broken
into several files already, but a reasonable chunking at
import time is good defense against running out of memory.)
Fixes the urgent part of #10397.
It was discovered that soft-deactivated users don't get mobile push
notifications for messages on private streams that they have configured
to send push notifications.
Reason: `handle_push_notification` calls `access_message`, and that
logic assumes that a user who is a recipient of a message has an
associated UserMessage row. Those UserMessage rows are created
lazily for soft-deactivated users, so they might not exist (yet)
until the user comes back.
Solution: Ensure that userMessage row is created for
stream_push_user_ids and stream_email_user_ids in create_user_messages.
In user type custom field, field value is list of user ids. We weren't
converting list to json object in update event payload. This throws
error in frontend, cause we store stringify representation of custom
field value. Therefore, after update event is recieved field-value-
type gets updated to array from string which throws json parsing error.
Using early-exit here allows us to more easily
comment why there are certain exemptions to
this logic.
We also only require callers to pass in realm,
not the whole user object.
This prevents leaking some variables into an already
cluttered function.
We also add test coverage for what's now an
early-exit condition in the new function--we exempt
public MIT streams from these events.
This change was partially driven by a quirk in Python
where peephole optimizations make `continue` lines
appear not to be covered.
I also think it's generally a good idiom to extract
functions for loop bodies when they don't actually
accumulate values or maintain other state. With this
commit we now prevent potential bugs for vars like
`is_stream` leaking between loop iterations.
We simulate a race condition by mocking create_user
to actually create a user, but then raise an
IntegrityError (as if another process had actually
created the user, not our test).
I also changed the real code to use explicitly
named parameters.
Our get_streams_traffic function used to query
all streams in the StreamCount table if you
passed in `None` for `streams`.
Now we require that you pass in a list of
stream_ids.
I don't know how much work this will save
the database, since probably the bulk of
the work is aggregating. If we need to fine
tune DB performance, we could possibly add
`realm` as an argument and add it to the filter.
What we'll immediately get, for large multi-realm
installations, is less data over the wire and
less work for the ORM.
The prior code uses an awkward idiom that
pre-dates the `exists()` function, and it
had an unreachable line of code.
The new version should be faster, since we
don't create a throwaway heavy Django object
or send needless data over the wire.
This functions appears to be redundant to
`access_stream_by_name`. The only
meaningful line of code in the function that we're
removing, the code that raises an error,
appears to be unreachable, despite reasonably
extensive tests.
The only thing the function was restricting
was that the case where the bot's owner was
unsubscribed to a private stream, which
is already locked down in
`access_stream_by_name` calls inside of
`patch_bot_backend`.
This commit increases test coverage
by removing unreachable code.
It's possible this function had
some theoretical value before we
introduced the `require_non_guest_human_user`
decorator to the `patch_bot_backend`
view, since in theory the bot itself
could have subscribed to a stream that
the owner didn't subscribe to. Even
then it's not clear that allowing the
bot to set that as a default stream
would have been harmful, since they
can already access it.
We want our methodology for extracting the last message
id to be consistent, particularly in terms of how we
handle edge cases. (I'll concede that the
`bulk_remove_subscriptions` codepath never hits that
corner case in practice, but it's harmless to handle
the theoretical case.)
It may also be nice to have this function show up
clearly in profiling.
This also adds some direct testing to the function.
It's not clear to me why we don't use `latest('id')`
in the implementation, but that's outside the scope
of this commit.
This de-clutters check_message a bit and also makes
it easy to audit our rules for who can write to a
stream.
Also, this works around a bug with Python where its
optimizations for the `pass` instruction make them
not appear to run and show up as uncovered in
coverage reports.
Right now it only has one function, but the function
we removed never really belonged in actions.py, and
now we have better test coverage on actions.py, which
is an important module to get to 100%.
This uses the recently introduced active_mobile_push_notification
flag; messages that have had a mobile push notification sent will have
a removal push notification sent as soon as they are marked as read.
Note that this feature is behind a setting,
SEND_REMOVE_PUSH_NOTIFICATIONS, since the notification format is not
supported by the mobile apps yet, and we want to give a grace period
before we start sending notifications that appear as (null) to
clients. But the tracking logic to maintain the set of message IDs
with an active push notification runs unconditionally.
This is designed with at-least-once semantics; so mobile clients need
to handle the possibility that they receive duplicat requests to
remove a push notification.
We reuse the existing missedmessage_mobile_notifications queue
processor for the work, to avoid materially impacting the latency of
marking messages as read.
Fixes#7459, though we'll need to open a follow-up issue for
using these data on iOS.
Fixes a regression introduced in 23246ff816.
However, we'll be shortly removing this feature, since it's legacy
support for an app that no longer is supported.
The "/stats" command doesn't actually do anything
interesting yet, and it also writes to the message
feed instead of replying directly to the user.
The history of this command was that it was
written during a PyCon sprint. It was mainly intended
as an example for subsequent slash commands. The
ones we built after "/stats" have sort of outgrown
"/stats" and don't follow the original structure
for "/stats". (The "/day", "/ping", and "/settings"
commands were built shortly after.)j
We probably want to ressurect "/stats" fairly soon,
after figuring out some useful stats and refining
the UI.
As you can see from this commit, resurrecting the
code here shouldn't be too difficult, but it
may actually be pretty rare that we just translate
slash commands into fleshed out messages.
random_api_key, the function we use to generate random tokens for API
keys, has been moved to zerver/lib/utils.py because it's used in more
parts of the codebase (apart from user creation), and having it in
zerver/lib/create_user.py was prone to cyclic dependencies.
The function has also been renamed to generate_api_key to have an
imperative name, that makes clearer what it does.
Now reading API keys from a user is done with the get_api_key wrapper
method, rather than directly fetching it from the user object.
Also, every place where an action should be done for each API key is now
using get_all_api_keys. This method returns for the moment a single-item
list, containing the specified user's API key.
This commit is the first step towards allowing users have multiple API
keys.
Renaming a user group to a name shared by other group wasn't a scenario
handled by the backend, and the server errored whenever this was
attempted.
Now a json_error is returned, letting the user know that a user group
with that name already exists.
When last user(only in case of admin) unsubscribe from private stream,
stream page doesn't get updated. Cause we delete the private stream
as soon as last user unsubscribe from stream.
So `sub` get undefined in frontend, cause that stream is deleted
before unsubscribe-user-from-stream event is received.
Fix this by changing order of events sent to frontend. Event
`subscription: remove` should be sent before `stream: delete` event
from backend.
This ensures that the format of this data structures matches that for
in-realm bots in the main users data structure (including avatars,
etc.).
Fixes#10138.
We were getting event-handling exceptions in JS in production if a new
user was created and then went and set a custom profile field, because
there was no `.profile_data` on their user object. We were able to
trace the issue down to the fact that our events didn't include that
field when creating a new user.
