- Decrease gravity, we come in too hot prioritizing too many new topics
- Remove all muted topics / categories and tags from the hot list
- Punish topics with zero likes in algorithm
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_tag_topics site setting to tag_topic_allowed_groups.
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_send_email_messages site setting to send_email_messages_allowed_groups.
Some plugins have names (e.g. discourse-x-yz) that
are totally different from what they are actually called,
and that causes issues when showing them in a sorted way
in the admin plugin list.
Now, we should use the setting category name from client.en.yml
if it exists, otherwise fall back to the name, for sorting.
This is what we do on the client to determine what text to
show for the plugin name as well.
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_create_tag site setting to create_tag_allowed_groups.
This PR maintains backwards compatibility until we can update plugins and themes using this.
Why this change?
The `can survive cache miss` test in `spec/requests/stylesheets_controller_spec.rb`
was failing because the file was not found on disk for the cache to be
regenerated. This is because a test in
`spec/lib/stylesheet/manager_spec.rb` was removing the entire
`tmp/stylesheet-cache` directory which is incorrect because the folder
in the test environment further segretates the stylesheet caches based
on the process of the test.
What does this change do?
1. Introduce `Stylesheet::Manager.rm_cache_folder` method for the test
environment to properly clean up the cache folder.
2. Make `Stylesheet::Manager::CACHE_PATH` a private constant since the
cache path should be obtained from the `Stylesheet::Manager.cache_fullpath` method.
`window.deprecationWorkflow` does not exist in the server-side pretty-text environment. This commit fixes the check and adds a general spec for deprecations triggered inside pretty-text
These tests are still flaky (order dependence) just that now it doesn't fail the test, instead it creates an infinite loop. Skipping these for now. We know they work because they pass, but they leak into other tests. I think we can re-enable locally and either fix or remove this once TL migration is done.
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_allow_self_wiki site setting to self_wiki_allowed_groups.
Nothing of note here. This is used in exactly one place, and there's no fallout.
There's a leaky test that breaks some controller tests if run first, creating an order-dependent flake.
This change fixes that, but in doing so also skips a low-value test that breaks from the fix. (Verified manually that it's working.)
When setting an old TL based site setting in the console e.g.:
SiteSetting.min_trust_level_to_allow_ignore = TrustLevel[3]
We will silently convert this to the corresponding Group::AUTO_GROUP. And vice-versa, when we read the value on the old setting, we will automatically get the lowest trust level corresponding to the lowest auto group for the new setting in the database.
A bug that allowed TL1 to convert other's posts to wiki.
The issue was introduced in this PR: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/24999/files
The wiki can be created if a user is TL3 and it is their own post - default 3 for setting `SiteSetting.min_trust_to_allow_self_wiki`
In addition, a wiki can be created by staff and TL4 users for any post.
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.
