Moves SEND_ALL to inside get_next_hotspots, since it is not something other
files should call.
Also changes the delay to 0s, and gates the code behind an
`if settings.DEVELOPMENT`.
The function is confusing and added unnecessary complexity, given that it is
only called in one place, and is not a function that should be exposed to
other modules.
We were mostly excluding inactive users before this fix, but
now we completely ignore them.
This potentially changes some of the data we return from
get_recipient_info(), but the extra user ids before this fix
were effectively ignored by the caller.
The prior code would queue up feedback messages even if the
feedback bot was deactivated, which was just due to oversight
most likely. (People probably rarely disable the feedback bot,
but they should have that option.)
We now triage message content for possible mentions before
going to the cache/DB to get name info. This will create an
extra data hop for messages with mentions, but it will save
a fairly expensive cache lookup for most messages. (This will
be especially helpful for large realms.)
[Note that we need a subsequent commit to actually make the speedup
happen here, since avatars also cause us to look up all users in
the realm.]
I feel like getting notifications about a board's background being
changed isn't very useful information and could interrupt the flow
of other important information such as Card changes or movement,
so I think we should not support this event and
should simply ignore such payloads in the future.
This is a nonfunctional refactor, designed primarily to make it
simpler to extend this code path when we later add support for
controlling whether email notifications go out on stream messages.
Previously, due to a logic bug, this feature would also send email
notifications for all messages on the stream, which is definitely not
the intent. The recent refactoring we just did makes the logic more
obvious.
My first version of this just replaced the repeated list of two output
files with an array variable, but I decided `"${outputs[@]}"` was too
much to ask people to understand, and the alternative of `$outputs`,
unquoted, encourages bad habits of shell programming. So just handle
one file at a time; the only at all expensive part here is `pip-compile`.
I am tempted to move this to Python, but holding back.
This makes the code a little more concise and also more uniform,
treating `future` the same in prod and in dev. The non-uniformity
looks like an oversight in 2be8a793e, one of the commits that updated
this code for the Python 3-only world.
