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.
