Currently to use a limit in the notifications index, you have to also pass recent: true as a param.
This PR:
Adds optional limit param to be used in the notifications query, regardless of the presence of recent
Raises the max limit of the response with recent present from 50 -> 60. It is super weird we have a hard-limit of 50 before with recent param, and 60 without the param.
Why this change?
Back in May 17 2023 along with the release of Discourse 3.1, we announced
on meta that the legacy hamburger dropdown navigation menu is
deprecated and will be dropped in Discourse 3.2. This is the link to the announcement
on meta: https://meta.discourse.org/t/removing-the-legacy-hamburger-navigation-menu-option/265274
## What does this change do?
This change removes the `legacy` option from the `navigation_menu` site
setting and migrates existing sites on the `legacy` option to the
`header dropdown` option.
All references to the `legacy` option in code and tests have been
removed as well.
What is the problem here?
In multiple controllers, we are accepting a `limit` params but do not
impose any upper bound on the values being accepted. Without an upper
bound, we may be allowing arbituary users from generating DB queries
which may end up exhausing the resources on the server.
What is the fix here?
A new `fetch_limit_from_params` helper method is introduced in
`ApplicationController` that can be used by controller actions to safely
get the limit from the params as a default limit and maximum limit has
to be set. When an invalid limit params is encountered, the server will
respond with the 400 response code.
This new site setting replaces the
`enable_experimental_sidebar_hamburger` and `enable_sidebar` site
settings as the sidebar feature exits the experimental phase.
Note that we're replacing this without depreciation since the previous
site setting was considered experimental.
Internal Ref: /t/86563
Users who can access the review queue can claim a pending reviewable(s) which means that the claimed reviewable(s) can only be handled by the user who claimed it. Currently, we show claimed reviewables in the user menu, but this can be annoying for other reviewers because they can't do anything about a reviewable claimed by someone. So this PR makes sure that we only show in the user menu reviewables that are claimed by nobody or claimed by the current user.
Internal topic: t/77235.
This commit makes pending reviewables show up in the main tab (a.k.a. "all notifications" tab). Pending reviewables along with unread notifications are always shown first and they're sorted based on their creation date (most recent comes first).
The dismiss button currently only shows up if there are unread notifications and it doesn't dismiss pending reviewables. We may follow up with another change soon that allows makes the dismiss button work with reviewables and remove them from the list without taking any action on them.
Follow-up to 079450c9e4.
Right now the experimental user menu sorts notifications the same way that the old menu does: unread high-priority notifications are shown first in reverse-chronological order followed by everything else also in reverse-chronological order. However, since the experimental user menu has dedicated tabs for some notification types and each tab displays a badge with the count of unread notifications in the tab, we feel like it makes sense to change how notifications are sorted in the experimental user menu to this:
1. unread high-priority notifications
2. unread regular notifications
3. all read notifications (both high-priority and regular)
4. within each group, notifications are sorted in reverse-chronological order (i.e. newest is shown first).
This new sorting logic applies to all tabs in the experimental user menu, however it doesn't change anything in the old menu. With this change, if a tab in the experimental user menu shows an unread notification badge for a really old notification, it will be surfaced to the top and prevents confusing scenarios where a user sees an unread notification badge on a tab, but the tab doesn't show the unread notification because it's too old to make it to the list.
Internal topic: t72199.
It's very easy to forget to add `require 'rails_helper'` at the top of every core/plugin spec file, and omissions can cause some very confusing/sporadic errors.
By setting this flag in `.rspec`, we can remove the need for `require 'rails_helper'` entirely.
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
This updates tests to use latest rails 5 practice
and updates ALL dependencies that could be updated
Performance testing shows that performance has not regressed
if anything it is marginally faster now.
Penar Musaraj
Mark VanLandingham
Alan Guo Xiang Tan
Keegan George
David Taylor
Osama Sayegh
Martin Brennan
Phil Pirozhkov
Ahmed Gagan
Jarek Radosz
Guo Xiang Tan
Sam Saffron