These two slash commands now use zcommand to talk to
the server, so we have no Message overhead, and if you're
on a stream, you no longer spam people by accident.
The commands now also give reasonable messages
if you are already in the mode you ask for.
It should be noted that by moving these commands out of
widget.py, they are no longer behind the ALLOW_SUB_MESSAGES
setting guard.
This adds a /ping command that will be useful for users
to see what the round trip to the Zulip server is (including
only a tiny bit of actual server time to basically give a
200).
It also introduce the "/zcommand" endpoint and zcommand.js
module.
For some reason in my original version I was sending both
content and data to the client for submessage events,
where data === JSON.parse(content). There's no reason
to not just let the client parse it, since the client
already does it for data that comes on the original
message, and since we might eventually have non-JSON
payloads.
The server still continues to validate that the payload
is JSON, and the client will blueslip if the server
regressses and sends bad JSON for some reason.
We now have a simple algorithm: First, look at the URL path
(e.g. /de/, which is intended to be an override). Second, look at the
language the user has specified in their settings.
This adds a common function `access_bot_by_id` to access bot id within
same realm. It probably fixes some corner case bugs where we weren't
checking for deactivated bots when regenerating API keys.
Fixes the avatar/emoji part of #8177.
Does not address the issue with uploaded images, since we don't do
anything with them.
Also adds 3 images with different orientation exif tags to
test-images.
Previously, if you had LDAPAuthBackend enabled, we basically blocked
any other auth backends from working at all, by requiring the user's
login flow include verifying the user's LDAP password.
We still want to enforce that in the case that the account email
matches LDAP_APPEND_DOMAIN, but there's a reasonable corner case:
Having effectively guest users from outside the LDAP domain.
We don't want to allow creating a Zulip-level password for a user
inside the LDAP domain, so we still verify the LDAP password in that
flow, but if the email is allowed to register (due to invite or
whatever) but is outside the LDAP domain for the organization, we
allow it to create an account and set a password.
For the moment, this solution only covers EmailAuthBackend. It's
likely that just extending the list of other backends we check for in
the new conditional on `email_auth_backend` would be correct, but we
haven't done any testing for those cases, and with auth code paths,
it's better to disallow than allow untested code paths.
Fixes#9422.
This is the analog of the last commit, for the password reset flow.
For these users, they should be managing/changing their password in
the LDAP server.
The error message for users doing the wrong thing here is nonexistent
isn't great, but it should be a rare situation.
Previously, if both EmailAuthBackend and LDAPAuthBackend were enabled,
LDAP users could set a password using EmailAuthBackend and continue to
use that password, even if their LDAP account was later deactivated.
That configuration wasn't supported at all before, so this doesn't fix
a pre-existing security issue, but now that we're making that a valid
configuration, we need to cover this case.
This reflects the changes to the default URL publicly
displayed to the user. It also changes the default
URL of the default test server outgoing webhook, which
prevented the test server flaskbotrc from working out
of the box.
Export of RealmEmoji should also include the image
file of those emojis.
Here, we export emojis both for local and S3 backend
in a method with is similar to attachments and avatars.
Added tests for the same.
This adds the fields `trigger` and `service_email`
to each message event dispatched by outgoing webhook bots.
`trigger` will be used by the Botserver to determine if
a bot is mentioned in the message.
`service_email` will be used by the Botserver to determine
by which outgoing webhook bot the message should be handled.
This should make it easier for us to iterate on a less-dense Zulip.
We create two classes on body, less_dense_mode and more_dense_mode, so
that it's easy as we refactor to separate the two concepts from things
like colors that are independent.
API users, particularly bots, can now send a field
called "widget_content" that will be turned into
a submessage for the web app to look at. (Other
clients can still rely on "content" to be there,
although it's up to the bot author to make the
experience good for those clients as well.)
Right now widget_content will be a JSON string that
encodes a "zform" widget with "choices." Our first
example will be a trivia bot, where users will see
something like this:
Which fruit is orange in color?
[A] orange
[B] blackberry
[C] strawberry
The letters will be turned into buttons on the webapp
and have canned replies.
This commit has a few parts:
- receive widget_content in the request (simply
validating that it's a string)
- parse the JSON in check_message and deeply
validate its structure
- turn it into a submessage in widget.py
This should significantly improve the user experience for creating
additional accounts on zulipchat.com.
Currently, disabled in production pending some work on visual styling.
This is intended to support our upcoming feature to support copying a
user's customization settings from an existing account that user owns
in another organization.
We essentially stop running create_realm_internal_bots during
every provisioing and move its operations to run from populate db.
In fact to speed things up a bit we actually make populate db call the
funcs which create_realm_internal_bots calls behind the scenes.
Fixes: #9467.
We extract the entire operations of the management command to a
function create_if_missing_realm_internal_bots in the
zerver/lib/onboarding.py. The logic for determining if there are any realm
internal bots which have not been created is extracted to a function
missing_any_realm_internal_bots in actions.py.
This isn't a complete long-term fix, in that ideally we'd be doing
this check at the view layer, but various structural things make that
annoying, and we'll want this test either way.
We've had this sort of logic for GCM for a long time; it's worth
adding for APNS as well.
Writing this is a bit of a reminder that I'm not a fan of how our unit
tests for push notifications work.
