"Rejecting" a user in the queue is equivalent to deleting them, which
would then making it impossible to review rejected users. Now we store
information about the user in the payload so if they are deleted things
still display in the Rejected view.
Secondly, if a user is destroyed outside of the review queue, it will
now automatically "Reject" that queue item.
Conversely, if a user is deactivated the reviewable should automatically
be rejected.
Before this fix, if a user was not active they'd still show in the
review queue but without an "Approve" button which was confusing.
If the post ids keep loading, we might end up in a situations where
we're always loading the same post ids over and over again without
indexing anything new.
Follow up to daeda80ada.
This commit fixes the follow quality issue with `PostSearchData#raw_data`:
1. URLs are being tokenized and links with similar href and characters
are being duplicated in the raw data.
`Post#cooked`:
```
<p><a href=\"https://meta.discourse.org/some.png\" class=\"onebox\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">https://meta.discourse.org/some.png</a></p>
```
`PostSearchData#raw_data` Before:
```
This is a test topic 0 Uncategorized https://meta.discourse.org/some.png discourse org/some png https://meta.discourse.org/some.png discourse org/some png
```
`PostSearchData#raw_data` After:
```
This is a test topic 0 Uncategorized https://meta.discourse.org/some.png meta discourse org
```
2. Ligthbox being included in search pollutes the
`PostSearchData#raw_data` unncessarily.
From 28 March 2018 to 28 March 2019, searches for the term `image` on
`meta.discourse.org` had a click through rate of 2.1%. Non-lightboxed images are not included in indexing for search yet we were indexing content within a lightbox. Also, search for terms like `image` was affected we were using `Pasted image` as the filename for
uploads that were pasted.
`Post#cooked`
```
<p>Let me see how I can fix this image<br>\n<div class=\"lightbox-wrapper\"><a class=\"lightbox\" href=\"https://meta.discourse.org/some.png\" title=\"some.png\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><img src=\"https://meta.discourse.org/some.png\" width=\"275\" height=\"299\"><div class=\"meta\">\n<svg class=\"fa d-icon d-icon-far-image svg-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><use xlink:href=\"#far-image\"></use></svg><span class=\"filename\">some.png</span><span class=\"informations\">1750×2000</span><svg class=\"fa d-icon d-icon-discourse-expand svg-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><use xlink:href=\"#discourse-expand\"></use></svg>\n</div></a></div></p>
```
`PostSearchData#raw_data` Before:
```
This is a test topic 0 Uncategorized Let me see how I can fix this image some.png png https://meta.discourse.org/some.png discourse org/some png some.png png 1750×2000
```
`PostSearchData#raw_data` After:
```
This is a test topic 0 Uncategorized Let me see how I can fix this image
```
In terms of indexing performance, we now have to parse the given HTML
through nokogiri twice. However performance is not a huge worry here since a string length of 194170 takes only 30ms
to scrub plus the indexing takes place in a background job.
Includes support for flags, reviewable users and queued posts, with REST API
backwards compatibility.
Co-Authored-By: romanrizzi <romanalejandro@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: jjaffeux <j.jaffeux@gmail.com>
- The test_email job is removed, because it was always being run synchronously (not in sidekiq)
- 34b29f62 added a bypass for critical emails, to match the spec. This removes the bypass, and removes the spec.
- This adapts the specs for 72ffabf6, so that they check for emails being sent
- This reimplements c2797921, allowing test emails to be sent even when emails are disabled
* Remove use of 0 in favor of `TrustLevel.levels[:newuser]`.
* Consolidate two tests into a single one.
* Test that disabling the feature works.
* Avoid loading full ActiveRecord object in test when we only need to
know the existence of the record.
Migrates email user options to a new data structure, where `email_always`, `email_direct` and `email_private_messages` are replace by
* `email_messages_level`, with options: `always`, `only_when_away` and `never` (defaults to `always`)
* `email_level`, with options: `always`, `only_when_away` and `never` (defaults to `only_when_away`)
* FEATURE: Add `IgnoredUsersSummary` daily job
## Why?
This is part of the [Ability to ignore a user feature](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-ignore-a-user/110254/8).
We want to:
1. Send an automatic group PM that goes out to moderators
2. When {x} users have Ignored the same user, threshold defined by a site setting, default of 5
3. Only send this message every X days which is defined by another site setting
It is not a setting, and only relevant in specs. The new API is:
```
Jobs.run_later! # jobs will be thrown on the queue
Jobs.run_immediately! # jobs will run right away, avoid the queue
```
We can only be sure that an email is sent when we get a mailer in
`ActionMailer::Deliveries`. A couple of tests were actually incorrect
because it didn't flow through our email sender where there are more
conditions in determining whether an email is sent or not.
- Open the log file in "append" mode. This avoids issues if the file does not exist (and matches standard rails log behavior)
- Correctly parse the interval logging environment variable
By default, this does nothing. Two environment variables are available:
- `DISCOURSE_LOG_SIDEKIQ`
Set to `"1"` to enable logging. This will log all completed jobs to `log/rails/sidekiq.log`, along with various db/redis/network statistics. This is useful to track down poorly performing jobs.
- `DISCOURSE_LOG_SIDEKIQ_INTERVAL`
(seconds) Check running jobs periodically, and log their current duration. They will appear in the logs with `status:pending`. This is useful to track down jobs which take a long time, then crash sidekiq before completing.
There was a situation where if:
* There were new flags to review that met the visibility threshold
AND
* There were old flags that *didn't* meet the threshold
THEN
a pending flags notification would be sent out. This fixes that case.
Staff should not be notified of flags if they do not meet the threshold
and are old.
