When posts are moved from one topic to another, the `topic_user.bookmarked` column for all users in the new and the old topic needs to be resynced, for example because a user bookmarks post 12 in topic 1, then it is moved to topic 2, the topic_user record for topic 1 should no longer be bookmarked. A background job has been added to sync the column for a specified topic, or for no topic at all, which does it for all topics like the migration.
Also includes a migration that we have run in the past to fix bad data.
----
This has been addressed in other places in the past:
https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/10211https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/10188
Because bookmarks have both topic and post ID, when the post was moved into another topic the bookmark was still attached to the post but did not show in the UI. This PR makes it so the all topic IDs for bookmarks attached to a post are updated when a post is moved.
Also included is a migration to fix affected records (e.g. on Meta there are 20 affected records).
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/improved-bookmarks-with-reminders/144542/203
Notification is created by a job. If the job is evaluated before changes are committed to a database, a notification will have an incorrect URL.
Therefore, the job should be lodged in enqueue_jobs method which is triggered after the transaction:
```ruby
Topic.transaction do
move_posts_to topic
end
add_allowed_users(participants) if participants.present? && @move_to_pm
enqueue_jobs(topic)
```
I improved a little bit specs to ensure that the destination topic_id is set. However, that tests are passing even without code improvements. I couldn't find an easy way to "delay" database transaction.
Meta: https://meta.discourse.org/t/bug-with-notifications-for-moved-posts/168937
Moving posts also moves the read state (`topic_users` table) to the destination topic. This changes that behavior so that only users who posted in the destination topic will have the original notification level (probably "watching") of the original topic. The notification level for all other users will be set to "regular".
Post timings are created by `topic_id` and `post_number` and it's possible that the destination topic already contains post timings for non-existent posts. For example, this can happen if the destination topic was previously split and Discourse recorded post timings for moved posts in the destination topic.
This commit ensures that all timings which reference non-existent posts are deleted from the destination topic before the posts are moved.
No need to let notifications stay around when users can't access
a topic after it was converted into a PM or posts were moved
into a restricted topic.
Also makes sure that moving to a new topic correctly uses the
guardian for the first post by enqueuing jobs outside of a
transaction.
* Introduced fab!, a helper that creates database state for a group
It's almost identical to let_it_be, except:
1. It creates a new object for each test by default,
2. You can disable it using PREFABRICATION=0
Hidden (staff-only) post actions are whisper posts with no content, that
are later transformed by the client into post actions (discourse-assign
uses this).
This change both speeds up specs (less strings to allocate) and helps catch
cases where methods in Discourse are mutating inputs.
Overall we will be migrating everything to use #frozen_string_literal: true
it will take a while, but this is the first and safest move in this direction
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>
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
```
Previously if you wanted to have jobs execute in test mode, you'd have
to do `SiteSetting.queue_jobs = false`, because the opposite of queue
is to execute.
I found this very confusing, so I created a test helper called
`run_jobs_synchronously!` which is much more clear about what it does.
