Updates automatically data on the stats section of the topic.
It will update automatically the following information: likes, replies and last reply (timestamp and user)
Previously email validations could fire when deleting posts if for
certain reasons any user validations fail on the user objects
This kind of condition could happen in core due to a corruption of a
user record, or via a plugin that introduces a new validation on User
We added this constraint in 5bd55acf83
but it is causing problems in hosted sites and is catching the
issue too far down the line. This commit removes the constraint
for now, and also fixes an issue found with PostDestroyer
which wasn't using the UserStatCountUpdater when updating post_count
and thus was causing negative numbers to occur.
Ensures that `UserStat#post_count` and `UserStat#topic_count` does not
go below 0. When it does like it did now, we tend to have bugs in our
code since we're usually coding with the assumption that the count isn't
negative.
In order to support the constraints, our post and topic fabricators in
tests will now automatically increment the count for the respective
user's `UserStat` as well. We have to do this because our fabricators
bypasss `PostCreator` which holds the responsibility of updating `UserStat#post_count` and
`UserStat#topic_count`.
Sometimes administrators want to permanently delete posts and topics
from the database. To make sure that this is done for a good reasons,
administrators can do this only after one minute has passed since the
post was deleted or immediately if another administrator does it.
When we call Bookmark.cleanup! we want to make sure that
topic_user.bookmarked is updated for topics linked to the
bookmarks that were deleted. Also when PostDestroyer calls
destroy and recover. We have a job for this already --
SyncTopicUserBookmarked -- so we just utilize that.
Based on feedback from Matt Haughey, we don't need to use so many words when describing a deleted topic or post.
Co-authored-by: Martin Brennan <martin@discourse.org>
I was adding specs to ensure that post actions and uploads are removed for permanently deleted posts.
I noticed that post revisions were not permanently destroyed. I added a migration to fix old data.
PostDestroyer should accept the option to permanently destroy post from the database. In addition, when the first post is destroyed it destroys the whole topic.
Currently, that feature is limited to private messages and creator of the post. It will be used by discourse-encrypt to explode encrypted private messages.
* FEATURE - allow category group moderators to delete topics
* Allow individual posts to be deleted
* DEV - refactor for new `can_moderate_topic?` method
Adds functionality to reflect topic delete in Discourse to IMAP inbox (Gmail only for now) and reflecting Gmail deletes in Discourse.
Adding lots of tests, various refactors and code improvements.
When Discourse topic is destroyed in PostDestroyer mark the topic incoming email as imap_sync: true, and do the opposite when post is recovered.
If a user posted a topic and Akismet decided it was spam, the topic gets deleted and put into the review queue. If a category moderator for that category marked the post/topic as "Not Spam" the topic did not get recovered correctly because Guardian.new(@user).can_review_topic?(@post.topic) returned false incorrectly because the topic was deleted.
To reproduce the initial issue here:
1. A user makes a post, which discourse-akismet marks as spam (I cheated and called `DiscourseAkismet::PostsBouncer.new.send(:mark_as_spam, post)` for this)
2. The post lands in the review queue
3. The category the topic is in has a `reviewable_by_group_id`
4. A user in that group goes and looks at the Review queue, decides the post is not spam, and clicks Not Spam
5. Weird stuff happens because the `PostDestroyer#recover` method didn't handle this (the user who clicked Not Spam was not the owner of the post and was not a staff member, so the post didn't get un-destroyed and post counts didn't get updated)
Now users who belong to a group who can review a category now have the ability to recover/delete posts fully.
* PERF: Dematerialize topic_reply_count
It's only ever used for trust level promotions that run daily, or compared to 0. We don't need to track it on every post creation.
* UX: Add symbol in TL3 report if topic reply count is capped
* DEV: Drop user_stats.topic_reply_count column
* Do not grant badges for posts with no user
* Ensure instructions are correct in Change Owner modal
* Hide user-dependent actions from posts with no user
* Make PostRevisor work with posts with no user
* Ensure posts with no user can be deleted
* discourse-narrative-bot should ignore posts with no user
* Skip TopicLink creation for posts with no user
* FIX: User should get notified when a post is deleted
* FEATURE: Notify posters when restoring flagged posts
* Fix typo
Co-Authored-By: Régis Hanol <regis@hanol.fr>
* Improve tests
This reduces chances of errors where consumers of strings mutate inputs
and reduces memory usage of the app.
Test suite passes now, but there may be some stuff left, so we will run
a few sites on a branch prior to merging
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>
Previously we would bypass touching `Topic.updated_at` for whispers and post
recovery / deletions.
This meant that certain types of caching can not be done where we rely on
this information for cache accuracy.
For example if we know we have zero unread topics as of yesterday and whisper
is made I need to bump this date so the cache remains accurate
This is only half of a larger change but provides the groundwork.
Confirmed none of our serializers leak out Topic.updated_at so this is safe
spot for this info
At the moment edits still do not change this but it is not relevant for the
unread cache.
This commit also cleans up some specs to use the new `eq_time` matcher for
millisecond fidelity comparison of times
Previously `freeze_time` would fudge this which is not that clean.
