We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_allow_ignore site setting to ignore_allowed_groups.
This PR maintains backwards compatibility until we can update plugins and themes using this.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_allow_invite site setting to invite_allowed_groups.
Nothing much of note. This is used in one place and there's no fallout.
Before, when needed to get stats in a plugin, we called Core classes directly.
Introducing plugin API will decouple plugins from Core and give as more freedom
in refactoring stats in Core. Without this API, I wasn't able to do all refactorings
I wanted when working on d91456f.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_allow_user_card_background site setting to user_card_background_allowed_groups.
Nothing of note here. This is used in exactly one place, and there's no fallout.
This validator is used for site settings where one or more groups are to be input.
At the moment this validator just checks that the value isn't blank. This PR adds a validation for the existence of the groups passed in.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the tl4_delete_posts_and_topics site setting to delete_all_posts_and_topics_allowed_groups.
This one is a bit different from previous ones, as it's a boolean flag, and the default should be no group. Pay special attention to the migration during review.
* FEATURE: core code, tests for feature to allow backups to removed based on a time window
* FEATURE: getting tests working for time-based backup
* FEATURE: getting tests running
* FEATURE: linting
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_to_flag_posts site setting to flag_post_allowed_groups.
Note: In the original setting, "posts" is plural. I have changed this to "post" singular in the new setting to match others.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_to_edit_post site setting to edit_post_allowed_groups.
The old implementation will co-exist for a short period while I update any references in plugins and themes.
This change converts the min_trust_to_create_topic site setting to
create_topic_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
- Hides the old setting
- Adds the new site setting
- Add a deprecation warning
- Updates to use the new setting
- Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was
changed
- Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
- Updates tests to account for the new change
- After a couple of months, we will remove the min_trust_to_create_topicsetting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
This change converts the allow_uploaded_avatars site setting to uploaded_avatars_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
Hides the old setting
Adds the new site setting
Adds a deprecation warning
Updates to use the new setting
Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was changed
Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
Updates tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months, we will remove the allow_uploaded_avatars setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
What motivated this change?
Our builds on Github actions have been extremely flaky mostly due to system tests. This has led to a drop in confidence
in our test suite where our developers tend to assume that a failed job is due to a flaky system test. As a result, we
have had occurrences where changes that resulted in legitimate test failures are merged into the `main` branch because developers
assumed it was a flaky test.
What does this change do?
This change seeks to reduce the flakiness of our builds on Github Actions by automatically re-running RSpec tests once when
they fail. If a failed test passes subsequently in the re-run, we mark the test as flaky by logging it into a file on disk
which is then uploaded as an artifact of the Github workflow run. We understand that automatically re-runs will lead to
lower accuracy of our tests but we accept this as an acceptable trade-off since a fragile build has a much greater impact
on our developers' time. Internally, the Discourse development team will be running a service to fetch the flaky tests
which have been logged for internal monitoring.
How is the change implemented?
1. A `--retry-and-log-flaky-tests` CLI flag is added to the `bin/turbo_rspec` CLI which will then initialize `TurboTests::Runner`
with the `retry_and_log_flaky_tests` kwarg set to `true`.
2. When the `retry_and_log_flaky_tests` kwarg is set to `true` for `TurboTests::Runner`, we will register an additional
formatter `Flaky::FailuresLoggerFormatter` to the `TurboTests::Reporter` in the `TurboTests::Runner#run` method.
The `Flaky::FailuresLoggerFormatter` has a simple job of logging all failed examples to a file on disk when running all the
tests. The details of the failed example which are logged can be found in `TurboTests::Flaky::FailedExample.to_h`.
3. Once all the tests have been run once, we check the result for any failed examples and if there are, we read the file on
disk to fetch the `location_rerun_location` of the failed examples which is then used to run the tests in a new RSpec process.
In the rerun, we configure a `TurboTests::Flaky::FlakyDetectorFormatter` with RSpec which removes all failed examples from the log file on disk since those examples are not flaky tests. Note that if there are too many failed examples on the first run, we will deem the failures to likely not be due to flaky tests and not re-run the test failures. As of writing, the threshold of failed examples is set to 10. If there are more than 10 failed examples, we will not re-run the failures.
Applies the embed_unlisted site setting consistently across topic embeds, including those created via the WP Discourse plugin. Relatedly, adds a embed exception to can_create_unlisted_topic? check. Users creating embedded topics are not always staff.
This change converts the min_trust_to_edit_wiki_post site setting to edit_wiki_post_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
Hides the old setting
Adds the new site setting
Add a deprecation warning
Updates to use the new setting
Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was changed
Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
Updates tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months, we will remove the email_in_min_trust setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
I took the wrong approach here, need to rethink.
* Revert "FIX: Use Guardian.basic_user instead of new (anon) (#24705)"
This reverts commit 9057272ee2.
* Revert "DEV: Remove unnecessary method_missing from GuardianUser (#24735)"
This reverts commit a5d4bf6dd2.
* Revert "DEV: Improve Guardian devex (#24706)"
This reverts commit 77b6a038ba.
* Revert "FIX: Introduce Guardian::BasicUser for oneboxing checks (#24681)"
This reverts commit de983796e1.
c.f. de983796e1
There will soon be additional login_required checks
for Guardian, and the intent of many checks by automated
systems is better fulfilled by using BasicUser, which
simulates a logged in TL0 forum user, rather than an
anon user.
In some cases the use of anon still makes sense (e.g.
anonymous_cache), and in that case the more explicit
`Guardian.anon_user` is used
Through internal discussion, it has become clear that
we need a conceptual Guardian user that bridges the
gap between anon users and a logged in forum user with
an absolute baseline level of access to public topics,
which can be used in cases where:
1. Automated systems are running which shouldn't see any
private data
1. A baseline level of user access is needed
In this case we are fixing the latter; when oneboxing a local
topic, and we are linking to a topic in another category from
the current one, we need to operate off a baseline level of
access, since not all users have access to the same categories,
and we don't want e.g. editing a post with an internal link to
expose sensitive internal information.
We add `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` to all asset requests which are requested via a configured CDN. This is particularly important now that we're using browser-native `import()` to load the highlightjs bundle. Unfortunately, user-configurable 'cors_origins' site setting was overriding the wldcard value on CDN assets and causing CORS errors.
This commit updates the logic to give the `*` value precedence, and adds a spec for the situation. It also invalidates the cache of hljs assets (because CDNs will have cached the bad Access-Control-Allow-Origin header).
The rack-cors middleware is also slightly tweaked so that it is always inserted. This makes things easier to test and more consistent.
Followup e37fb3042d
* Automatically remove the prefix `Discourse ` from all the plugin titles to avoid repetition
* Remove the :discourse_dev: icon from the author. Consider a "By Discourse" with no labels as official
* We add a `label` metadata to plugin.rb
* Only plugins made by us in `discourse` and `discourse-org` GitHub organizations will show these in the list
* Make the plugin author font size a little smaller
* Make the commit sha look like a link so it's more obvious it goes to the code
Also I added some validation and truncation for plugin metadata
parsing since currently you can put absolutely anything in there
and it will show on the plugin list.
This change refactors the check `user.groups.any?` and instead uses
`user.staged?` to check if the user is staged or not.
Also fixes several tests to ensure the users have their auto trust level
groups created.
Follow up to:
- 8a45f84277
- 447d9b2105
- c89edd9e86
Followup to e37fb3042d,
in some cases we cannot get git information for the
plugin folder (e.g. permission issues), so we need
to only try and get information about it if
commit_hash is present.
This change converts the `email_in_min_trust` site setting to
`email_in_allowed_groups`.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
- Hides the old setting
- Adds the new site setting
- Add a deprecation warning
- Updates to use the new setting
- Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was
changed
- Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
- Updates tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months we will remove the
`email_in_min_trust` setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/115696
* DEV: Convert approve_new_topics_unless_trust_level to groups
This change converts the `approve_new_topics_unless_trust_level` site
setting to `approve_new_topics_unless_allowed_groups`.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
- Hides the old setting
- Adds the new site setting
- Add a deprecation warning
- Updates to use the new setting
- Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was
changed
- Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
- Updates tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months we will remove the
`approve_new_topics_unless_trust_level` setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/115696
* add missing translation
* Add keyword entry
* Add migration
We were throwing ArgumentError in UrlHelper.normalised_encode,
but it was incorrect -- we were passing ArgumentError.new
2 arguments which is not supported. Fix this and have a hint
of which URL is causing the issue for debugging.
This change converts the `approve_unless_trust_level` site setting to
`approve_unless_allowed_groups`.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
- Adds the new site setting
- Adds a deprecation warning
- Updates core to use the new settings.
- Adds a migration to fill in the new setting of the old setting was
changed
- Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
- Updates many tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months we will remove the `approve_unless_trust_level`
setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/115696
* Remove checkmark for official plugins
* Add author for plugin, which is By Discourse for all discourse
and discourse-org github plugins
* Link to meta topic instead of github repo
* Add experimental flag for plugin metadata and show this as a
badge on the plugin list if present
---------
Co-authored-by: chapoi <101828855+chapoi@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit adds a new `search_default_sort_order` site setting,
set to "relevance" by default, that controls the default sort order
for the full page /search route.
If the user changes the order in the dropdown on that page, we remember
their preference automatically, and it takes precedence over the site
setting as a default from then on. This way people who prefer e.g.
Latest Post as their default can make it so.
When we started using NumberField for integer site settings
in e113eff663, we did not end up
passing down a min/max value for the integer to the field, which
meant that for some fields where negative numbers were allowed
we were not accepting that as valid input.
This commit passes down the min/max options from the server for
integer settings then in turn passes them down to NumberField.
c.f. https://meta.discourse.org/t/delete-user-self-max-post-count-not-accepting-1-to-disable/285162
- Remove vendored copy
- Update Rails implementation to look for language definitions in node_modules
- Use webpack-based dynamic import for hljs core
- Use browser-native dynamic import for site-specific language bundle (and fallback to webpack-based dynamic import in tests)
- Simplify markdown implementation to allow all languages into the `lang-{blah}` className
- Now that all languages are passed through, resolve aliases at runtime to avoid the need for the pre-built `highlightjs-aliases` index
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.
