The comment logic doesn’t make sense. Every build gets to write to
the caches; some builds do in fact add new items, and without
clean_unused_caches.py there’s no way for them to remove items.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
(cherry picked from commit 124c5d02e5)
This works around a failure in the current postgresql-client-common
and postgresql-client-15 packages; it exists primarily to improve
the signal on our CI builds, as the failure is a real failure caused
by the package upgrade process.
All `X-amz-*` headers must be included in the signed request to S3;
since Django did not take those headers into account (it constructed a
request from scratch, while nginx's request inherits them from the
end-user's request), the proxied request fails to be signed correctly.
Strip off the `X-amz-cf-id` header added by CloudFront. While we
would ideally strip off all `X-amz-*` headers, this requires a
third-party module[^1].
[^1]: https://github.com/openresty/headers-more-nginx-module#more_clear_input_headers
This is common in cases where the reverse proxy itself is making
health-check requests to the Zulip server; these requests have no
X-Forwarded-* headers, so would normally hit the error case of
"request through the proxy, but no X-Forwarded-Proto header".
Add an additional special-case for when the request's originating IP
address is resolved to be the reverse proxy itself; in these cases,
HTTP requests with no X-Forwarded-Proto are acceptable.
Previously (with ERROR_REPORTING = True), we’d stuff the entire
traceback of the initial exception into the subject line of an error
email, and then also send a separate email for the JSON 500 response.
Instead, log one error with the standard Django format.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
The name and docstring were just wrong, having a UserMessage row isn't
sufficient for having message access and is actually only relevant in a
private stream with private history. The function is only used in a
single place anyway, in bulk_access_messages.
The comment mentioning this function in handle_remove_push_notification
can be tweaked to just not mention any function specifically and just
say why we're not checking message access.
Users who used to be subscribed to a private stream and have been
removed from it since retain the ability to edit messages/topics, and
delete messages that they used to have access to, if other relevant
organization permissions allow these actions. For example, a user may be
able to edit or delete their old messages they posted in such a private
stream. An administrator will be able to delete old messages (that they
had access to) from the private stream.
We fix this by fixing the logic in has_message_access (which lies at the
core of our message access checks - access_message() and
bulk_access_messages())
to not rely on only a UserMessage row for checking access but also
verify stream type and subscription status.
Previously, if a user tried to create a webhook using the Webhooks
plugin in Sentry and used the "Test plugin" to test the webhook,
the server would send a 500 error, even though the integration
worked perfectly. This led users to believe that the integration
was not working.
Fixes#26173.
(cherry picked from commit eb8714c9dc)
This is done to clarify from where this fixture is coming from; as there
are two documented ways to test the integration.
(cherry picked from commit fdc14ee3f0)
Because the third party might not be expecting a 400 from our
webhooks, we now instead use 200 status code for unknown events,
while sending back the error to Sentry. Because it is no longer an error
response, the response type should now be "success".
Fixes#24721.
(cherry picked from commit 84723654c8)
This helps reduce the impact on busy uwsgi processes in case there are
slow timeout failures of Sentry servers. The p99 is less than 300ms,
and p99.9 per day peaks at around 1s, so this will not affect more
than .1% of requests in normal operation.
This is not a complete solution (see #26229); it is merely stop-gap
mitigation.
(cherry picked from commit a076d49be7)
Previously I've wanted to have this page spell out the concrete
version number that our clients support, rather than the policy we
use for determining that version number, because that's the sort of
question that I feel like as a user I'd want a straight answer to
and would be annoyed if I couldn't get one.
But as the text stands, it's come to look more like it's the policy
(something that's heavyweight to change) than like the value that
the policy currently happens to work out to. Also, because this page
is kind of chaotically organized (and fixing that is a bigger yak
than I want to shave right now), it repeats the 18-month rule in
three separate places and the current value (version 4.0) is in
a fourth separate place, so it looks internally inconsistent.
Let's therefore take a different tack: like in those other three
spots on this page, state just the policy instead of the value it
currently works out to; but also add a link to help the reader
pin down for themselves what value that does work out to.
This also means we no longer need to update this page as old releases
age and that value advances.
Also fix a typo, and cut the reference to working degraded on
older releases. Starting earlier this year we finally started
hard-refusing such connections:
https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile/issues/5102https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile/pull/5633
(which was because there were some swathes of compatibility code
that we could only cut if we completely broke the handling of
ancient servers, and so we preferred to have the app communicate
that break clearly up front.)
(cherry picked from commit bb6fe0385e)
