This change affects realm_users and realm_non_active_users.
Note that we still send full avatar urls in realm_user/add
events, so apply_events has to do something mildly hacky to
turn the avatar_url to None in that case.
Fixing the event is probably not worth the trouble, as single
urls are not bandwidth hogs; we only need this optimization
for bulk data.
This change affects these values:
* page_params.avatar_url
* page_params.avatar_url_medium
It requires passing the client_gravatar flag through this
codepath:
* home_real
* do_events_register
* fetch_initial_state_data
* avatar_url
Seems like the more logical check. Also, the previous code makes it feel
like there is a potential vulnerability where one could get an email change
object in a realm where email changes are disabled, and then open that link
while logged in to a different realm.
While we're at it, remove the unnecessary check that the user is
logged in when clicking the confirmation link; that creates
unnecessary trouble for users who use multiple browsers.
This commit allows clients to register client_gravatar=True, and
then we recognize that flag for message events. If the flag is
True, we will not calculate gravatar URLs and let the clients do
it themselves. (Clients can calculate gravatar URLs based on
emails with just a little bit of code.)
This refactoring doesn't change behavior, but it sets us up
to more easily handle a register setting for `client_gravatar`,
which will allow clients to tell us they're going to compute
their own gravatar URLs.
The `client_gravatar` flag already exists in our code, but it
is only used for Django views (users/messages) but not for
Zulip events.
The main change is to move the call to `set_sender_avatar` into
`finalize_payload`, which adds the boolean `client_gravatar`
parameter to that function. And then we update various callers
to supply that flag.
One small performance benefit of this change is that we now
lazily compute the client message payloads in
`event_queue.process_message_event` now, so this will improve
performance if all interested clients have the same value of
`apply_markdown`. But the change here is really preparing us
for the additional boolean parameter, which will cause us to
have four variations of the payload.
This change:
* Prevents weird potential attacks like taking a valid confirmation link
(say an unsubscribe link), and putting it into the URL of a multiuse
invite link. I don't know of any such attacks one could do right now, but
reasoning about it is complicated.
* Makes the code easier to read, and in the case of confirmation/views.py,
exposes something that needed refactoring anyway (USER_REGISTRATION and
INVITATION should have different endpoints, and both of those endpoints
should be in zerver/views/registration, not this file).
Before this commit, ResponseMock() was initialized
with a data attribute, which isn't used in the tests
and does not occur in the outgoing webhook code.
The main limitation of this version is that it's controlled entirely
from settings, with nothing in the database and no web UI or even
management command to control it. That makes it a bit more of a
burden for the server admins than it'd ideally be, but that's fine
for now.
Relatedly, the web flow for realm creation still requires choosing a
subdomain even if the realm is destined to live at an alias domain.
Specific to the dev environment, there is an annoying quirk: the
special dev login flow doesn't work on a REALM_HOSTS realm. Also,
in this version the `add_new_realm` and `add_new_user` management
commands, which are intended for use in development environments only,
don't support this feature.
In manual testing, I've confirmed that a REALM_HOSTS realm works for
signup and login, with email/password, Google SSO, or GitHub SSO.
Most of that was in dev; I used zulipstaging.com to also test
* logging in with email and password;
* logging in with Google SSO... far enough to correctly determine
that my email address is associated with some other realm.
The original PR to allow generic bots to be mentioned had
some merge issues that we detected about a week after the
fact. This commit restores the logic from the original PR.
The reason we didn't detect this bug earlier is that the
merge issues didn't break any existing behavior. Instead,
they made it so that only UserMessage rows got written for
bots, but no events were being set. The part of the commit
that got lost is restored here, so now events get sent as
well.
Thanks to @derAnfaenger for reporting this and being patient
as we tracked it down.
Fixes#7140
This adds the data model and bugdown support for the new UserGroup
mention feature.
Before it'll be fully operational, we'll still need:
* A backend API for making these.
* A UI for interacting with that API.
* Typeahead on the frontend.
* CSS to make them look pretty and see who's in them.
