* Convert symbol hash keys to strings when calling .perform_async
Fixes a warning from Sidekiq 6.4.0+ about perform_async arguments
which are not equal when passed to perform (`JSON.parse(JSON.dump(arg))`
should equal arg).
This is a safety measure to prevent passing objects (like classes, or
model instances) rather than their representations (like a class name,
or a model's attributes hash).
This warning will be an error in sidekiq 7
* Turn warning into an error in non-production environments
* Use string keys for reaction notification and article fetched
Missed these two on the first pass
* Update example argument hashes for #enqueues_on_correct_queue
Since this calls perform_async under the hood we need to pass json
safe hashes in the test cases as well.
https://github.com/forem/forem/blob/main/spec/workers/shared_examples/enqueues_on_correct_queue.rb
* Convert keys from FollowData#to_h to string before perform_async
I'm not sure enough where else (outside of notification) to_h is being
called, so I'm converting here when building args, rather than in
FollowData#to_h, which might be my next step.
* Let FollowData#to_h return a hash with string keys
Update spec to use string keys as well.
* Make to_h return string keys for ReactionData
Like FollowData, the #to_h method is only used to call
notifications (this is used to enqueue sidekiq jobs).
* Remove a key that was in the hash
Since reaction_data calls to_h, it gets string and not symbol,
keys. Call Hash#except with a key that was actually there.
* Refactoring cached_followed_tags
This refactor consolidates two queries and a loop into a single query.
One thing that is unclear is if we're ever really clearing the cache of
the user by id?
What follows is un-related to the refactor but appears to be related to #14937.
> First, I see we set a cache here:
>
> ebdaaaf15b/app/decorators/user_decorator.rb (L23-L34)
>
> But when I look at what busts the user cache, it doesn’t look like we’re busting it for the above cached location:
>
> ebdaaaf15b/app/services/edge_cache/bust_user.rb (L3-L22)
>
> What if anything am I missing in regards to cache busting?
* Adding some deprecated methods
* Updating documentation
* Bump for travis
* Bump for travis
* Updating comments to fix confusion
NOTE: I might be introducing more confusion, but at least
I'm addressing the prior confusion.
* Bump for travis
* Updating so we don't cache ActiveRecord objects
* Selecting only applicable attributes for caching
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Michael Kohl <citizen428@forem.com>
* Adjusting code based on feedback
* Bump for travis
* Bump for travis
* Update app/decorators/user_decorator.rb
Co-authored-by: Michael Kohl <citizen428@forem.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Kohl <citizen428@forem.com>
I saw the following error in Honeybadger:
```
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/services/notifications/reactions/send.rb:61 :in `call`
old_json_data = notification.json_data
previous_siblings_size = notification.json_data["reaction"]["aggregated_siblings"].size if old_json_data
notification.json_data = json_data
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/services/notifications/reactions/send.rb:20 :in `call`
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/workers/notifications/new_reaction_worker.rb:16 :in `perform`
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/models/notification.rb:84 :in `send_reaction_notification_without_delay`
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/controllers/reactions_controller.rb:136 :in `destroy_reaction`
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/controllers/reactions_controller.rb:168 :in `handle_existing_reaction`
[PROJECT_ROOT]/app/controllers/reactions_controller.rb:77 :in `create`
```
As I was exploring the error, I saw that we were making assumptions
about the data coercion. These are valid and somewhat stable
assumptions, but I wanted to look a little deeper into the situation.
This refactor helps consistently negotiate two situations where we're
transforming request-cycle models into lightweight data structures. It
also begins to show a path towards a generalizable "macro" for this behavior.
Related to #2122, #9534
* Don't set saw_onboarding automatically
This should be set by the onboarding checkbox update (user accepted
terms of service and code of conduct).
The issue is a PATCH request to track the last seen page is sent on
the first page, _before_ the user consents to the terms via the
checkboxes.
This issue is masked by a 422 unprocessable entity response when we
don't get a username in the patch request (next commit).
* Only validate username on the username page
Every other "last page seen" dialog was returning a 422 because the
username is only submitted in the 3rd dialog "build your profile".
Only validate the username field when it's submitted, process other
onboarding updates normally.
* Remove failing test
Since the onboarding_update action no longer sets saw
onboarding (since we send the patch before they've accepted the code
of conduct), don't test that we do.
There's a parallel test for the onboarding checkbox update later in
this file that covers the checkboxes have been accepted.
* overwrite instead of merging user_params
We now initialize it empty, no need to merge params here.
On the DEV.to database, I ran the following SQL:
```sql
SELECT name, short_summary FROM tags WHERE short_summary LIKE '%<%';
```
There were three tags with a `<` in them:
- changelog
- cnc2018
- javascript
This PR will tidy up our short summary as part of saving a tag. It will
also tidy up the existing tags.
* add default placeholder, remove focus on first load
* fix some bugs re autofocus and mouse click to select
* allow custom selected styles to be passed in
* operate on objects with name property rather than plain strings
* WIP main functionality in place
* set default selections, allow a max to be placed on selections
* switch help context
* bug fixes to edit mode, static suggestions
* make sure suggestion resumes when edit begins
* cleanup and docs
* update existing form test
* add component tests
* add more component test cases
* refactor max selections flow, ensure default tag data only loads once
* stop removing combobox properties now the input stays visible
* add max selections test
* refactor
* make sure input refocus happens after blur event
* update cypress tests
* some small renames and doc changes
* only fetch exact matches from added tags
* fix test, update dark theme background
* set a max height on the popover, and ensure options can be scrolled into view
* woops - max height
* Update app/javascript/article-form/components/TagsField.jsx
Co-authored-by: Ridhwana <Ridhwana.Khan16@gmail.com>
* refactors
* stop dropdown from flickering
* use ButtonNew
* remove redundant variant
* nudge PR checks
Co-authored-by: Ridhwana <Ridhwana.Khan16@gmail.com>
The fix might be a bit of a work-around for a more general approach, but
we're fighting against the magic of the points vs. explicit_points
tension as defined in the [Follows::UpdatePointsWorker][1].
That is to say, it's possible (and happens) where I have assigned an
`explicit_points` of 1 for a tag, but the calculated `points` are less
than 1. The calculated `points` are what we send forward in the
[AsyncInfoController][1] (by way of the
[UserDecorator#cached_followed_tags][3] method).
In DEV, I ran the following queries:
**User assigned points `>= 1` but calculated `< 1`**
985,352 records
```sql
SELECT count(id)
FROM follows
WHERE followable_type = 'ActsAsTaggableOn::Tag'
AND points < 1
AND explicit_points >= 1;
```
**User assigned points `>= 1` but calculated `>= 1`**
5,366,478 records
```sql
SELECT count(id)
FROM follows
WHERE followable_type = 'ActsAsTaggableOn::Tag'
AND points >= 1
AND explicit_points >= 1;
```
**User assigned points `>= 1` but calculated `>= 0`**
0 records.
```sql
SELECT count(id)
FROM follows
WHERE followable_type = 'ActsAsTaggableOn::Tag'
AND points <= 0
AND explicit_points >= 1;
```
**User assigned points `<= 0` but calculated `> 0`**
1,146 records
```sql
SELECT count(id)
FROM follows
WHERE followable_type = 'ActsAsTaggableOn::Tag'
AND points > 0
AND explicit_points <= 0;
```
Synthesizing that, almost 1 million tag follows of the total 6.3 million
are not showing up in the user's left navigation. And 5.3 million are
roughly correct.
In adjusting the logic, we're now going to have more tags showing up in
the left. And just over 1,000 might now show up that would be unexpected.
Closes#14937.
[1]:c63e0b629e/app/workers/follows/update_points_worker.rb
[2]:c63e0b629e/app/controllers/async_info_controller.rb (L40-L65)
[3]:c63e0b629e/app/decorators/user_decorator.rb (L23-L34)
* Let override of ToS and CoC show in onboarding
Prior to this commit any changes to the terms or code of conduct were
not reflected in the onboarding links.
With this commit, I'm leveraging a newly created method that first
checks if there's a page for the given slug. If there is, use that
page's copy.
To test:
- Overwrite default /terms page on a Forem
- Navigate to /onboarding or sign up as a new user
- Click on Terms of Use link text
- Review Terms of Use
Closes#15296
* Adding spec around not passing a block
* Removes the Getting Started section and related code from the config
* Removes the admin_manages_configuration_spec.rb
* Removes "Required" tags from Config
* Reverts removal of activateMissingKeysModal
* Removes mandatory.rb
* Remove special handling of "connect" feedback by name
The special casing was related to "connect" feedback having both a
reporter and an offender. Check for offender instead.
Additionally, there was special casing in the controller to rate-limit
connect feedback separately from other channels. Since connect doesn't
exist, we should not need this.
There's a small bit of functionality (when I post to feedback_messages, the
number of feedback messages increases) that was removed from the test
case, we can add that back (and "connect" type, and
offender_id attributes) since it looks like it might have been a
useful assertion.
* Add back feedback message controller creates feedback message case
This was removed in the last commit because it was in a "connect" chat
channel context, but the basic "should persist a record" test was
otherwise valid. Submit an abuse-report rather than a connect message
report.
* typo
feeedback, woops.
* Select max from a subquery of two things
max(int, int) not a function, says postgres, once it stopped yelling
about parenthesis balancing.
* prefer greatest to select max from subquery
* Ensuring that we don't divide by zero
Adding one to a "always-ish greater than or equal to 0" value. This
should resolve a flakey test and a seemingly erratic production error.
Resolves https://app.honeybadger.io/projects/66984/faults/83596547
* Favoring min over adding 1
Due to syncrhonization antics, let's not assume time is consistent
across servers.
Timey Whimey Wibbley Wobbley
* Update app/services/articles/feeds/weighted_query_strategy.rb
Co-authored-by: Daniel Uber <djuber@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Uber <djuber@gmail.com>
* Ensuring we don't track views of author or unpublished
Prior to this commit, I was surprised to learn that we:
1) Tracked an author's view of their article.
2) Tracked views of an unpublished article.
This came up from a Forem creator asking if they could reset the view
counter. Or trigger the reset on publication.
I think a general business logic policy of don't track views for the
author and don't track views for unpublished articles is a reasonable
default.
Were we to pursue the clear views on publication, we'd need to consider
something that went from unpublished -> published -> unpublished ->
published. Without a more explicit state machine, triggering a
busineiss logic behavior seems a bit unexpected.
In other words, I wrote an article. There are 20 views when I realize
that I need to unpublished it. I make the changes in the unpublished
state, and re-publish. I'd assume that those 20 views would still be
"recorded" and counted towards my article's view counts.
* Adjusting condition structure
Prior to this commit, the `if` clause was rather far to the right. This
helps make the if clause more pronounced.
