There is a category setting that enforces 1 or more tags must be added to a topic from a specific tag group before creating it. This validation was not being run before the topic was being sent to a review queue for categories that have that setting enabled.
There was an existing validation in `TopicCreator` but it was not correct; it was only validating when the tags did _not_ exist and also only happened on `create`. I now run the validation in `TopicCreator.valid?`
I also improved the error message shown to the user when they have not added the tags required (showing the tag names from the tag group), and changed the composer tag selector to not show "optional" if there are N tags required from a certain group.
This feature used to be controlled by two site settings
enable_personal_email_messages and min_trust_to_send_email_messages.
I removed enable_personal_email_messages and unhide
min_trust_to_send_email_messages to simplify the process of
enabling / disabling this feature.
For some reasons, we have two ways of associating "custom fields" to a new topic:
using 'meta_data' and 'custom_fields'.
However, if we were to provide both arguments, the 'meta_data' would be overwritten
by any 'custom_fields' provided.
This commit ensures we can use both and merges the 'custom_fields' with the 'meta_data'.
In a category's settings, the Tags tab has two new fields to
specify the number of tags that must be added to a topic
from a tag group. When creating a new topic, an error will be
shown to the user if the requirement isn't met.
* 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
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
* FIX: allow sending PMs to staff via flag even when PMs are disabled
FIX: allow sending PMs to staff via flag even if the user trust level is insufficient
* Update lib/topic_creator.rb
Co-Authored-By: techAPJ <arpit@techapj.com>
These site settings are very hard to explain and only applicable for very
specific Discourse setups.
If an admin "enables staged users" which is used in support scenarios then
all staff can send "messages" directly to an "email".
The setting allows you to extend this to TL4 or any trust level.
Actual use case would be a support type setup with restricted staff. It is
quite rare so hiding this for now and re-evaluate keeping the setting in
2019
Since rspec-rails 3, the default installation creates two helper files:
* `spec_helper.rb`
* `rails_helper.rb`
`spec_helper.rb` is intended as a way of running specs that do not
require Rails, whereas `rails_helper.rb` loads Rails (as Discourse's
current `spec_helper.rb` does).
For more information:
https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/docs/upgrade#default-helper-files
In this commit, I've simply replaced all instances of `spec_helper` with
`rails_helper`, and renamed the original `spec_helper.rb`.
This brings the Discourse project closer to the standard usage of RSpec
in a Rails app.
At present, every spec relies on loading Rails, but there are likely
many that don't need to. In a future pull request, I hope to introduce a
separate, minimal `spec_helper.rb` which can be used in tests which
don't rely on Rails.
Changed internals so trust levels are referred to with
TrustLevel[1], TrustLevel[2] etc.
This gives us much better flexibility naming trust levels, these names
are meant to be controlled by various communities.
Martin Brennan
Bianca Nenciu
jbrw
Krzysztof Kotlarek
Jarek Radosz
Régis Hanol
Neil Lalonde
Blake Erickson
Daniel Waterworth
Sam Saffron
Arpit Jalan
Guo Xiang Tan
Guo Xiang Tan
Andy Waite
Luciano Sousa