We want to allow admins to make new required fields apply to existing users. In order for this to work we need to have a way to make those users fill up the fields on their next page load. This is very similar to how adding a 2FA requirement post-fact works. Users will be redirected to a page where they can fill up the remaining required fields, and until they do that they won't be able to do anything else.
We previously migrated field_type from a string to an integer backed enum. Part of this involved renaming a column in a post migration, swapping out field_type:string for field_type:integer. This borks the ActiveRecord cache since the application is already running. Rebooting fixes it, but we want to avoid having this happen in the first place.
Follow up to: #27444. In that PR we added a new integer column for UserField#field_type and populated the data based on the old text field.
In this PR we drop the old text column and swap in the new integer (enum) column.
Currently this column is a text column, but by right should only take on one of the values text, confirm, dropdown, multiselect. We can convert this to an ActiveRecord enum instead.
This PR adds a new integer column (field_type_enum) and populates it based on the existing text column (field_type) and adds an alias to replace the latter with the former.
The mistake was made when flags were moved to the database. The `notify_moderators` (something else) flag should be the last position on the list.
This commit contains 3 changes:
- update fixtures order;
- remove position and enable from fixtures (they can be overridden by admin and we don't want seed to restore them);
- migration to fix data if the order was not changed by admin.
Continued work on moderate flags UI.
In this PR admins are allowed to change the order of flags. The notify user flag is always on top but all other flags can be moved.
This commit adds the ability for site administrators to mark users'
passwords as expired. Note that this commit does not add any client side
interface to mark a user's password as expired.
The following changes are introduced in this commit:
1. Adds a `user_passwords` table and `UserPassword` model. While the
`user_passwords` table is currently used to only store expired
passwords, it will be used in the future to store a user's current
password as well.
2. Adds a `UserPasswordExpirer.expire_user_password` method which can
be used from the Rails console to mark a user's password as expired.
3. Updates `SessionsController#create` to check that the user's current
password has not been marked as expired after confirming the
password. If the password is determined to be expired based on the
existence of a `UserPassword` record with the `password_expired_at`
column set, we will not log the user in and will display a password
expired notice. A forgot password email is automatically send out to
the user as well.
This gives us daily fidelity of topic view stats
New table stores a row per topic viewed per day tracking
anonymous and logged on views
We also have a new endpoint `/t/ID/views-stats.json` to get the statistics for the topic.
We're planning to implement a feature that allows adding required fields for existing users. This PR does some preparatory refactoring to make that possible. There should be no changes to existing behaviour. Just a small update to the admin UI.
This PR introduces a basic AdminNotice model to store these notices. Admin notices are categorized by their source/type (currently only notices from problem check.) They also have a priority.
In #22851 we added a dependent strategy for deleting upload references when a draft is destroyed. This, however, didn't catch all cases, because we still have some code that issues DELETE drafts queries directly to the database. Specifically in the weekly cleanup job handled by Draft#cleanup!.
This PR fixes that by turning the raw query into an ActiveRecord #destroy_all, which will invoke the dependent strategy that ultimately deletes the upload references. It also includes a post migration to clear orphaned upload references that are already in the database.
This defaults the action to
- Censor if there are no "replacement"
- Replace if there's a "replacement"
It also fixes the `WatchedWordGroups` action to the action of one of their `WatchedWords`
At the moment, there is no way to create a group of related watched words together. If a user needed a set of words to be created together, they'll have to create them individually one at a time.
This change attempts to allow related watched words to be created as a group. The idea here is to have a list of words be tied together via a common `WatchedWordGroup` record. Given a list of words, a `WatchedWordGroup` record is created and assigned to each `WatchedWord` record. The existing WatchedWord creation behaviour remains largely unchanged.
Co-authored-by: Selase Krakani <skrakani@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Martin Brennan <martin@discourse.org>
This commit introduces a few changes as a result of
customer issues with finding why a topic was relisted.
In one case, if a user edited the OP of a topic that was
unlisted and hidden because of too many flags, the topic
would get relisted by directly changing topic.visible,
instead of going via TopicStatusUpdater.
To improve tracking we:
* Introduce a visibility_reason_id to topic which functions
in a similar way to hidden_reason_id on post, this column is
set from the various places we change topic visibility
* Fix Post#unhide! which was directly modifying topic.visible,
instead we use TopicStatusUpdater which sets visibility_reason_id
and also makes a small action post
* Show the reason topic visibility changed when hovering the
unlisted icon in topic status on topic titles
This change creates a user setting that they can toggle if
they don't want to receive unread notifications when someone closes a
topic they have read and are watching/tracking it.
Why this change?
There are two problematic queries in question here when loading
notifications in various tabs in the user menu:
```
SELECT "notifications".*
FROM "notifications"
LEFT JOIN topics ON notifications.topic_id = topics.id
WHERE "notifications"."user_id" = 1338 AND (topics.id IS NULL OR topics.deleted_at IS NULL)
ORDER BY notifications.high_priority AND NOT notifications.read DESC,
NOT notifications.read AND notifications.notification_type NOT IN (5,19,25) DESC,
notifications.created_at DESC
LIMIT 30;
```
and
```
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT "notifications".*
FROM "notifications"
LEFT JOIN topics ON notifications.topic_id = topics.id
WHERE "notifications"."user_id" = 1338
AND (topics.id IS NULL OR topics.deleted_at IS NULL)
AND "notifications"."notification_type" IN (5, 19, 25)
ORDER BY notifications.high_priority AND NOT notifications.read DESC, NOT notifications.read DESC, notifications.created_at DESC LIMIT 30;
```
For a particular user, the queries takes about 40ms and 26ms
respectively on one of our production instance where the user has 10K notifications while the site has 600K notifications in total.
What does this change do?
1. Adds the `index_notifications_user_menu_ordering` index to the `notifications` table which is
indexed on `(user_id, (high_priority AND NOT read) DESC, (NOT read)
DESC, created_at DESC)`.
1. Adds a second index `index_notifications_user_menu_ordering_deprioritized_likes` to the `notifications`
table which is indexed on `(user_id, (high_priority AND NOT read) DESC, (NOT read AND notification_type NOT IN (5,19,25)) DESC, created_at DESC)`. Note that we have to hardcode the like typed notifications type here as it is being used in an ordering clause.
With the two indexes above, both queries complete in roughly 0.2ms. While I acknowledge that there will be some overhead in insert,update or delete operations. I believe this trade-off is worth it since viewing notifications in the user menu is something that is at the core of using a Discourse forum so we should optimise this experience as much as possible.
Why this change?
Follow up to f880f1a42f. When adding an
index concurrently where the database transaction is disabled, we have
to ensure that we drop the index first if it exists because an invalid
index can be created if the migration has failed before.
As part of problem checks refactoring, we're moving some data to be DB backed. In this PR it's the tracking of problem check execution. When was it last run, when was the last problem, when should it run next, how many consecutive checks had problems, etc.
This allows us to implement the perform_every feature in scheduled problem checks for checks that don't need to be run every 10 minutes.
Affects the following settings:
delete_all_posts_and_topics_allowed_groups
experimental_new_new_view_groups
enable_experimental_admin_ui_groups
custom_summarization_allowed_groups
pm_tags_allowed_for_groups
chat_allowed_groups
direct_message_enabled_groups
chat_message_flag_allowed_groups
This turns off client: true for these group-based settings,
because there is no guarantee that the current user gets all
their group memberships serialized to the client. Better to check
server-side first.
Since we just released 3.2, this is a good time to drop deprecated columns. This is a two-phase process. First we drop the columns, then we remove the ignored_columns declarations. Because of that I'm batching all deprecated columns for dropping here first. Once a full deploy is done we remove the declarations.
Why this change?
This commit introduces an experimental `type: objects` theme setting
which will allow theme developers to store a collection of objects as
JSON in the database. Currently, the feature is still in development and
this commit is simply setting up the ground work for us to introduce the
feature in smaller pieces.
What does this change do?
1. Adds a `json_value` column as `jsonb` data type to the `theme_settings` table.
2. Adds a `experimental_objects_type_for_theme_settings` site setting to
determine whether `ThemeSetting` records of with the `objects` data
type can be created.
3. Updates `ThemeSettingsManager` to support read/write access from the
`ThemeSettings#json_value` column.
- Created a new migration for here_mention
- Updated existing migration for here_mention
- Updated site settings for here_mention, create_tag, and
send_email_messages
* DEV: Update min trust level to tag topics migration to groups
- Update the existing migration to include staff and admin
- Update default values
- Added migration to include staff and admin cases
We just completed the 3.2 release, which marks a good time to drop some previously deprecated columns.
Since the column has been marked in ignored_columns, it has been inaccessible to application code since then. There's a tiny risk that this might break a Data Explorer query, but given the nature of the column, the years of disuse, and the fact that such a breakage wouldn't be critical, we accept it.
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_level_for_user_api_key site setting to user_api_key_allowed_groups.
This isn't used by any of our plugins or themes, so very little fallout.
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_post_links site setting to post_links_allowed_groups.
This isn't used by any of our plugins or themes, so very little fallout.
This introduces a new experimental hot sort ordering.
It attempts to float top conversations by first prioritizing a topics with lots of recent activity (likes and users responding)
The schedule that updates hot topics is disabled unless the hidden site setting: `experimental_hot_topics` is enabled.
You can control "decay" with `hot_topic_gravity` and `recency` with `hot_topics_recent_days`
Data is stored in the new `topic_hot_scores` table and you can check it out on the `/hot` route once
enabled.
---------
Co-authored-by: Penar Musaraj <pmusaraj@gmail.com>
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.
Fixes the migration in 8c6144d116
which was unconditionally enabling the new admin sidebar for admins
if they ever changed the old setting `enable_admin_sidebar_navigation`,
even if they changed it to false.
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.
* FEATURE: Cache embed contents in the database
This will be useful for features that rely on the semantic content of topics, like the many AI features
Co-authored-by: Roman Rizzi <rizziromanalejandro@gmail.com>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Admin can add tag description up to 1000 characters.
Full description is displayed on tag page, however on topic list it is truncated to 80 characters.
* DEV: Auto link video placeholder posts
Followup to 91232847e3
Adds a migration to auto-link any video placeholder posts so that upload
references will be created.
Co-authored-by: Jarek Radosz <jradosz@gmail.com>
We were seeing lots of deadlocks deploying this migration. This improves
the situation in 2 ways.
1. ddl transaction is avoided, so we hold locks for far shorter times
2. we operate in chunks of a maximum of 100_000 posts (though it is heavily filtered down)
* improve code so it is clearer
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
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
This commit fixes an issue where when some actions were done
(deleting/recovering post, moving posts) we updated the
topic_users.bookmarked column to the wrong value. This was happening
because the SyncTopicUserBookmarked job was not taking into account
Topic level bookmarks, so if there was a Topic bookmark and no
Post bookmarks for a user in the topic, they would have
topic_users.bookmarked set to false, which meant the bookmark would
no longer show in the /bookmarks list.
To reproduce before the fix:
* Bookmark a topic and don’t bookmark any posts within
* Delete or recover any post in the topic
c.f. https://meta.discourse.org/t/disappearing-bookmarks-and-expected-behavior-of-bookmarks/264670/36
This commit introduces a new feature that allows theme developers to manage the transformation of theme settings over time. Similar to Rails migrations, the theme settings migration system enables developers to write and execute migrations for theme settings, ensuring a smooth transition when changes are required in the format or structure of setting values.
Example use cases for the theme settings migration system:
1. Renaming a theme setting.
2. Changing the data type of a theme setting (e.g., transforming a string setting containing comma-separated values into a proper list setting).
3. Altering the format of data stored in a theme setting.
All of these use cases and more are now possible while preserving theme setting values for sites that have already modified their theme settings.
Usage:
1. Create a top-level directory called `migrations` in your theme/component, and then within the `migrations` directory create another directory called `settings`.
2. Inside the `migrations/settings` directory, create a JavaScript file using the format `XXXX-some-name.js`, where `XXXX` is a unique 4-digit number, and `some-name` is a descriptor of your choice that describes the migration.
3. Within the JavaScript file, define and export (as the default) a function called `migrate`. This function will receive a `Map` object and must also return a `Map` object (it's acceptable to return the same `Map` object that the function received).
4. The `Map` object received by the `migrate` function will include settings that have been overridden or changed by site administrators. Settings that have never been changed from the default will not be included.
5. The keys and values contained in the `Map` object that the `migrate` function returns will replace all the currently changed settings of the theme.
6. Migrations are executed in numerical order based on the XXXX segment in the migration filenames. For instance, `0001-some-migration.js` will be executed before `0002-another-migration.js`.
Here's a complete example migration script that renames a setting from `setting_with_old_name` to `setting_with_new_name`:
```js
// File name: 0001-rename-setting.js
export default function migrate(settings) {
if (settings.has("setting_with_old_name")) {
settings.set("setting_with_new_name", settings.get("setting_with_old_name"));
}
return settings;
}
```
Internal topic: t/109980
No plugins or themes rely on anonymous_posting_min_trust_level so we
can just switch straight over to anonymous_posting_allowed_groups
This also adds an AUTO_GROUPS const which can be imported in JS
tests which is analogous to the one defined in group.rb. This can be used
to set the current user's groups where JS tests call for checking these groups
against site settings.
Finally a AtLeastOneGroupValidator validator is added for group_list site
settings which ensures that at least one group is always selected, since if
you want to allow all users to use a feature in this way you can just use
the everyone group.
Why this change?
Back in May 17 2023 along with the release of Discourse 3.1, we announced
on meta that the legacy hamburger dropdown navigation menu is
deprecated and will be dropped in Discourse 3.2. This is the link to the announcement
on meta: https://meta.discourse.org/t/removing-the-legacy-hamburger-navigation-menu-option/265274
## What does this change do?
This change removes the `legacy` option from the `navigation_menu` site
setting and migrates existing sites on the `legacy` option to the
`header dropdown` option.
All references to the `legacy` option in code and tests have been
removed as well.
In #20135 we prevented invalid inputs from being accepted in category setting form fields on the front-end. We didn't do anything on the back-end at that time, because we were still discussing which path we wanted to take. Eventually we decided we want to move this to a new CategorySetting model.
This PR moves the require_topic_approval and require_reply_approval from custom fields to the new CategorySetting model.
This PR is nearly identical to #20580, which migrated num_auto_bump_daily, but since these are slightly more sensitive, they are moved after the previous one is verified.
What motivated this change?
A core migration contains chat related code and this should not be the
case since chat related migration code should live in the chat plugin.
What does this change do?
This change removes the migration which was introduced to keep existing
sites on the legacy navigation menu as well as keep chat disabled when
the defaults for the `navigation_menu` and `chat_enabled` site settings
were flipped. Since this migration doesn't apply to new sites and
the migration has already been introduced for 9 months, it is safe for
us to remove it.
We have one site setting, `auto_silence_fast_typers_max_trust_level`, which expects a trust level. However, the type is set to integer, which makes it very hard for a layman to enter the correct thing.
This PR changes the type of the site setting to the `TrustLevelSetting` enum.
The use of these are interchangeable in the back-end, since `SiteSetting.auto_silence_fast_typers_max_trust_level` still returns the integer value with the enum.
In a previous commit these site settings were removed from the codebase
because they were identified as unused settings. This commit removes
these settings from the db in case they existed in the site settings
table.
Follow up to: da389d7844
