We never use that information and this also fixes an issue with the BCC plugin which ends up triggering a rate-limit because we were publishing a "NEW_PRIVATE_MESSAGE" to the user sending the BCC for every recipients 💥
Internal - t/118283
We have all these calls to Group.refresh_automatic_groups! littered throughout the tests. Including tests that are seemingly unrelated to groups. This is because automatic group memberships aren't fabricated when making a vanilla user. There are two places where you'd want to use this:
You have fabricated a user that needs a certain trust level (which is now based on group membership.)
You need the system user to have a certain trust level.
In the first case, we can pass refresh_auto_groups: true to the fabricator instead. This is a more lightweight operation that only considers a single user, instead of all users in all groups.
The second case is no longer a thing after #25400.
The most common thing that we do with fab! is:
fab!(:thing) { Fabricate(:thing) }
This commit adds a shorthand for this which is just simply:
fab!(:thing)
i.e. If you omit the block, then, by default, you'll get a `Fabricate`d object using the fabricator of the same name.
* DEV: Remove enable_whispers site setting
Whispers are enabled as long as there is at least one group allowed to
whisper, see whispers_allowed_groups site setting.
* DEV: Always enable whispers for admins if at least one group is allowed.
cf. e62e93f83a
This PR also makes it so `bot` (negative ID) and `system` users are always allowed
to send PMs, since the old conditional was just based on `enable_personal_messages`
Before, whispers were only available for staff members.
Config has been changed to allow to configure privileged groups with access to whispers. Post migration was added to move from the old setting into the new one.
I considered having a boolean column `whisperer` on user model similar to `admin/moderator` for performance reason. Finally, I decided to keep looking for groups as queries are only done for current user and didn't notice any N+1 queries.
This commit fixes two issues at play. The first was introduced
in f6c852b (or maybe not introduced
but rather revealed). When a user posted a new message in a topic,
they received the unread topic tracking state MessageBus message,
and the Unread (X) indicator was incremented by one, because with the
aforementioned perf commit we "guess" the correct last read post
for the user, because we no longer calculate individual users' read
status there. This meant that every time a user posted in a topic
they tracked, the unread indicator was incremented. To get around
this, we can just exclude the user who created the post from the
target users of the unread state message.
The second issue was related to the private message topic tracking
state, and was somewhat similar. Whenever a user created a new private
message, the New (X) indicator was incremented, and could not be
cleared until the page was refreshed. To solve this, we just don't
update the topic state for the user when the new_topic tracking state
message comes through if the user who created the topic is the
same as the current user.
cf. https://meta.discourse.org/t/bottom-of-topic-shows-there-is-1-unread-remaining-when-there-are-actually-0-unread-topics-remaining/220817
It's very easy to forget to add `require 'rails_helper'` at the top of every core/plugin spec file, and omissions can cause some very confusing/sporadic errors.
By setting this flag in `.rspec`, we can remove the need for `require 'rails_helper'` entirely.
When a user archives a personal message, they are redirected back to the
inbox and will refresh the list of the topics for the given filter.
Publishing an event to the user results in an incorrect incoming message
because the list of topics has already been refreshed.
This does mean that if a user has two tabs opened, the non-active tab
will not receive the incoming message but at this point we do not think
the technical trade-offs are worth it to support this feature. We
basically have to somehow exclude a client from an incoming message
which is not easy to do.
Follow-up to fc1fd1b416
There are certain design decisions that were made in this commit.
Private messages implements its own version of topic tracking state because there are significant differences between regular and private_message topics. Regular topics have to track categories and tags while private messages do not. It is much easier to design the new topic tracking state if we maintain two different classes, instead of trying to mash this two worlds together.
One MessageBus channel per user and one MessageBus channel per group. This allows each user and each group to have their own channel backlog instead of having one global channel which requires the client to filter away unrelated messages.
