Currently, categories support designating only 1 group as a moderation group on the category. This commit removes the one group limitation and makes it possible to designate multiple groups as mods on a category.
Internal topic: t/124648.
### Why?
Before, all flags were static. Therefore, they were stored in class variables and serialized by SiteSerializer. Recently, we added an option for admins to add their own flags or disable existing flags. Therefore, the class variable had to be dropped because it was unsafe for a multisite environment. However, it started causing performance problems.
### Solution
When a new Flag system is used, instead of using PostActionType, we can serialize Flags and use fragment cache for performance reasons.
At the same time, we are still supporting deprecated `replace_flags` API call. When it is used, we fall back to the old solution and the admin cannot add custom flags. In a couple of months, we will be able to drop that API function and clean that code properly. However, because it may still be used, redis cache was introduced to improve performance.
To test backward compatibility you can add this code to any plugin
```ruby
replace_flags do |flag_settings|
flag_settings.add(
4,
:inappropriate,
topic_type: true,
notify_type: true,
auto_action_type: true,
)
flag_settings.add(1001, :trolling, topic_type: true, notify_type: true, auto_action_type: true)
end
```
### Why?
Before, all flags were static. Therefore, they were stored in class variables and serialized by SiteSerializer. Recently, we added an option for admins to add their own flags or disable existing flags. Therefore, the class variable had to be dropped because it was unsafe for a multisite environment. However, it started causing performance problems.
### Solution
When a new Flag system is used, instead of using PostActionType, we can serialize Flags and use fragment cache for performance reasons.
At the same time, we are still supporting deprecated `replace_flags` API call. When it is used, we fall back to the old solution and the admin cannot add custom flags. In a couple of months, we will be able to drop that API function and clean that code properly. However, because it may still be used, redis cache was introduced to improve performance.
To test backward compatibility you can add this code to any plugin
```ruby
replace_flags do |flag_settings|
flag_settings.add(
4,
:inappropriate,
topic_type: true,
notify_type: true,
auto_action_type: true,
)
flag_settings.add(1001, :trolling, topic_type: true, notify_type: true, auto_action_type: true)
end
```
* FEATURE: add agree and edit
adds agree and edit - an alias for agree and keep -- but with a client action to
edit the post in the composer before the flag is agreed with
---------
Co-authored-by: Juan David Martinez <juan@discourse.org>
Currently, the reviewable queue includes ReviewableFlaggedPost with posts that have already been hidden. This allows for such hidden posts to be cleared up by the auto-tool.
As per discussion, we want to move the options to delete the user under the "Yes" menu of the review queue, since these options are often the most recommended, but also frequently missed because they are tucked away under their own menu.
In addition to the move, I removed the title case of the options so that it matches the other options in the "Yes" menu.
* UX: add type tag and design update
* UX: clarify status copy in reviewQ
* DEV: switch to selectKit
* UX: color approve/reject buttons in RQ
* DEV: regroup actions
* UX: add type tag and design update
* UX: clarify status copy in reviewQ
* Join questions for flagged post with "or" with new I18n function
* Move ReviewableScores component out of context
* Add CSS classes to reviewable-item based on human type
* UX: add table header for scoring
* UX: don't display % score
* UX: prefix modifier class with dash
* UX: reviewQ flag table styling
* UX: consistent use of ignore icon
* DEV: only show context question on pending status
* UX: only show table headers on pending status
* DEV: reviewQ regroup actions for hidden posts
* UX: reviewQ > approve/reject buttons
* UX: reviewQ add fadeout
* UX: reviewQ styling
* DEV: move scores back into component
* UX: reviewQ mobile styling
* UX: score table on mobile
* UX: reviewQ > move meta info outside table
* UX: reviewQ > score layout fixes
* DEV: readd `agree_and_keep` and fix the spec tests.
* Fix the spec tests
* fix the quint test
* DEV: readd deleting replies
* UX: reviewQ copy tweaks
* DEV: readd test for ignore + delete replies
* Remove old
* FIX: Add perform_ignore back in for backwards compat
* DEV: add an action alias `ignore` for `ignore_and_do_nothing`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Martin Brennan <martin@discourse.org>
Co-authored-by: Vinoth Kannan <svkn.87@gmail.com>
This commit introduce a new API for registering callbacks, which we'll execute when a user gets destroyed, and the `delete_posts` opt is true. The chat plugin registers one callback and queues a job to destroy every message from that user in batches.
Before this commit, there was no way for us to efficiently check an
array of topics for which a user can see. Therefore, this commit
introduces the `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` method which accepts an
array of `Topic#id`s and filters out the ids which the user is not
allowed to see. The `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` method is meant to
maintain feature parity with `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic?` at all
times so a consistency check has been added in our tests to ensure that
`TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` returns the same result as
`TopicGuardian#can_see_topic?`. In the near future, the plan is for us
to switch to `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` completely but I'm not
doing that in this commit as we have to be careful with the performance
impact of such a change.
This method is currently not being used in the current commit but will
be relied on in a subsequent commit.
Subclasses must call #delete_user_actions inside build_actions to support user deletion. The method adds a delete user bundle, which has a delete and a delete + block option. Every subclass is responsible for implementing these actions.
Recalculating a ReviewableFlaggedPost's score after rejecting or ignoring it sets the score as 0, which means that we can't find them after reviewing. They don't surpass the minimum priority threshold and are hidden.
Additionally, we only want to use agreed flags when calculating the different priority thresholds.
Zeitwerk simplifies working with dependencies in dev and makes it easier reloading class chains.
We no longer need to use Rails "require_dependency" anywhere and instead can just use standard
Ruby patterns to require files.
This is a far reaching change and we expect some followups here.
* 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
* UX: Rename "Keep Post" to "Keep Post Hidden" when hidden
This is based on this feedback:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/category-group-review-moderation/116478/19
When a post is hidden this makes the operation much more clear.
* REFACTOR: Better support for aliases for actions
Allow calls on alias actions and delegate to the original one.
This is less code but also simplifies tests where the action might
be "agree_and_keep" or "agree_and_keep_hidden" which are the same.
The `AutoQueueHandler` will ignore really old flags. In that case, don't
notify the user that the moderator is looking into it. They probably
never saw it because it didn't meet the reviewable minimum priority.
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
This is a feature that used to be present in discourse-assign but is
much easier to implement in core. It also allows a topic to be assigned
without it claiming for review and vice versa and allows it to work with
category group reviewers.
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>
