Apparently, the change and test I added before didn't quite cover the
corner case that was broken. This does, and exposes a second bug as
well, which we fix.
When editing a message where we mention a usergroup, we would remove
the 'mentioned' flag from messages, resulting in the message being
hidden from your mentions in the UI. This was reported by Greg Price in
https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/9-issues/topic/missing.20mention.
We add the same code that we use in do_send_messages to calculate the
updated mentions_user_ids. We add some tests alongside other user group
mention tests in test_bugdown.
Instead of taking a subsection option and calling the settings_org
function to update that subsection, we now take a callback function
as on_update. Also, we now store the value initial value of the
widget in opts.value instead of reading again from page_params.
These changes allow us to use this widget outside of settings_org
and for values other than settings that are in page_params.
Since notify is mostly depreciated in the latest versions of CircleCI.
Although we can use use notify in CircleCI 2.0 but currently
there is no documentation regarding it.
We could have use notify here rather than this hacky solution but
if we use notify it was not possible to trigger CircleCI webhook only
for the main Zulip repository.
Also corrected the circle ci webhook for the case where we don't receive
previous in post request
Slack has disabled creation of legacy tokens, which means we have to use other
tokens for importing the data. Thus, we shouldn't throw an error if the token
doesn't match the legacy token format.
Since we do not have any other validation for those tokens yet, we log a warning
but still try to continue with the import assuming that the token has the right
scopes.
See https://api.slack.com/changelog/2020-02-legacy-test-token-creation-to-retire.
Using the `host` virtual package confused Puppet into reporting it was
doing work every time one did a puppet run, resulting in unnecessarily
spammy output.
While this functionality to post slow queries to a Zulip stream was
very useful in the early days of Zulip, when there were only a few
hundred accounts, it's long since been useless since (1) the total
request volume on larger Zulip servers run by Zulip developers, and
(2) other server operators don't want real-time notifications of slow
backend queries. The right structure for this is just a log file.
We get rid of the queue and replace it with a "zulip.slow_queries"
logger, which will still log to /var/log/zulip/slow_queries.log for
ease of access to this information and propagate to the other logging
handlers. Reducing the amount of queues is good for lowering zulip's
memory footprint and restart performance, since we run at least one
dedicated queue worker process for each one in most configurations.
This adds a webhook that can be used to interpret standard Slack
payloads. Since there are a ton of existing Slack integrations out
there, having a webhook which can accept standard Slack payloads can
significantly ease transition pains. Obviously this can't do everything
that Slack payloads can (particularly WRT their widgets/interactions),
but we can ingest text and parse out multi-block payloads into a message
relatively reasonably.
Our priority hierarchy is:
(1) Tornado and base services like memcached, redis, etc.
(2) Django and message sender queue workers.
(3) Everything else.
Ideally, we'd have something a bit more fine-grained (e.g. some queue
workers are potentially in the sending path, while others aren't), but
this should have a big impact on ensuring Tornado gets the resources
it needs during load spikes.
I think this has a good chance of causing some load spikes that would
previously have resulted in a user-facing delivery delays no longer
having any significant user-facing impact.
Currently when the user uploads files with ".jpe" file extension, the
markdown is converted to link but the image is not embedded.
This commit adds the support for ".jpe" file extension.
Fixes#14863
The prior version of "me" confusingly had the same
user_id as one of our bots, so I fixed that.
I also avoid using a test email of 'owner@zulip.com',
which is confusing for earlier tests where I haven't
established "me" as the actual owner of any bots.
These changes should be included in bd9b74436c,
as it makes sure that Zulip limited plan realm won't be able to change the
`message_retention_days` setting.
We now no longer have to remember that
`is_guest` is on `user` but `is_current_user`
is in `..`.
And we no longer have to remember that
`full_name` is on `user` but `display_email`
is in `..`.
We now gather all the bot info in one place, rather
than grabbing some of it during the triage phase and
then some of it later.
We also explicitly copy over the fields that we
need for the template, in preparation for two
efforts:
- We want to get data from `people.js` and
avoid the round trip to `<server>/json/users`.
- We want to simplify the template by
flattening our data. (It's really somewhat
arbitrary whether `is_admin` is a calculated
value, for example, but we currently leak
that implementation detail to the template.)
We can't flatten this data quite yet, since we
share the same template for bot users as human users,
so we'll fix the human data in a bit.
We now close on status_field in our event handlers,
so that there's no chance of writing to the wrong
status field if somebody switches panels before
we have a status to report.
We can't eliminate `get_status_field` yet, but that
will go away in a future commit.
We now create the event handlers directly in
`set_up()`, and we explicitly tie them to
each of the three tables.
The goal here is to allow us to set up
the three tables individually, and this gets
us closer to that goal.
This is a purely lexical move (apart from changing
a closure variable to an argument), which is
simply designed to make less indentation for the
reader and to de-clutter `handle_human_form`.
When editing a bot, there are only two fields
that are similar to humans--full name and
email--which are trivial.
Before this commit we used a single codepath
to build the human form and the bot form.
Now we have two simple codepaths.
The tricky nature of the code had already led
to ugly things for the bot codepath that
fortunately weren't user facing, but which
were distracting:
- For bots we would needlessly set things
like is_admin, is_guest in the template
data.
- For bots we would needlessly try to update
custom profile fields.
The code that differs between bots and humans
is nontrivial, and the code was both hard to read
and hard to improve:
- Humans don't have bot owners.
- Bots don't have custom profile fields.
The bot-owner code is nontrivial for performance
reasons. In a big realm there are tens of thousands
of potential bot owners. We avoid the most egregious
performance problems (i.e we don't have multiple
copies of the dropdown), but we may still want
to refine that (at least adding a spinner).
The custom-profile-fields code is nontrivial due
to the dynamic nature of custom profile fields,
which can bring in specialized widgets like
pill fields.
Now each form corresponds to a single endpoint:
* human -> /json/users
* bot -> /json/bots
Before we had a lot of conditional logic in
the template, the code to build to views, and
the code to submit the data. Now everything is
much flatter.
The human code is still a bit messy (more work
coming on that), but the bot code is fairly
pristine. All three components of the bot code
fit on a page, and there are no conditionals:
- admin_bot_form.hbs
- open_bot_form
- handle_bot_form
We may want to grow out the bot code a bit
to allow admins to do more things, such as
adding services, and this will be easier now.
It would also be easier for us now to share
widgets with the per-user bot settings.
Note that the form for editing human data will
continue to be invoked from two panels:
- Users
- Deactivated users
There are some minor differences between
users and deactivated users, but the shape of
the data is the same for both, so that's still
all one codepath.
We eliminate `reset_edit_user` here, since
it was never used.
One nice thing about these forms was that they
had very little custom CSS attached to them
(at form-level specificity), and it turned out
all the custom CSS was for the human-specific
form.
This is purely refactoring.
The new call tree is:
on_load_success
populate_users
handle_deactivation
handle_reactivation
handle_user_form
handle_bot_owner_profile
handle_bot_deactivation
The actual sequence of operations should be
identical to before.
When reading the calling code, it's helpful to know
that we're really just passing in a selector. The
calls to open_modal/close_modal are nicer now to
reconcile with surrounding code, and you don't have
to guess whether the parameter is some kind of
"key" value--it really just refers directly to a DOM
element.
There is nothing user-visible about this change, but
the blueslip info messages now include the hash:
open modal: open #change_email_modal
