This cleans up logster configuration a bit cause we no longer have to
check if we respond_to anything and keeps the logster limit properly
documented
Followup on da578e92
- s3_force_path_style was added as a Minio specific url scheme but it has never been well supported in our code base.
- Our new migrate_to_s3 rake task does not work reliably with path style urls too
- Minio has also added support for virtual style requests i.e the same scheme as AWS S3/DO Spaces so we can rely on that instead of using path style requests.
- Add migration to drop s3_force_path_style from the site_settings table
This reverts commit d1c4981f65.
Per discussion with @coding-horror it was decided this change is to
far reaching.
Instead we will make smaller strategic changes to tooltips that add
value.
* improved emoji support
- always optimize images as part of the task
- use the unicode standard ordering/naming for sections
* UX: more height for when there are recently used
Migrates email user options to a new data structure, where `email_always`, `email_direct` and `email_private_messages` are replace by
* `email_messages_level`, with options: `always`, `only_when_away` and `never` (defaults to `always`)
* `email_level`, with options: `always`, `only_when_away` and `never` (defaults to `only_when_away`)
* FEATURE: Exposing a way to add a generic report filter
## Why do we need this change?
Part of the work discussed [here](https://meta.discourse.org/t/gain-understanding-of-file-uploads-usage/104994), and implemented a first spike [here](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/6809), I am trying to expose a single generic filter selector per report.
## How does this work?
We basically expose a simple, single generic filter that is computed and displayed based on backend values passed into the report.
This would be a simple contract between the frontend and the backend.
**Backend changes:** we simply need to return a list of dropdown / select options, and enable the report's newly introduced `custom_filtering` property.
For example, for our [Top Uploads](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/6809/files#diff-3f97cbb8726f3310e0b0c386dbe89e22R1423) report, it can look like this on the backend:
```ruby
report.custom_filtering = true
report.custom_filter_options = [{ id: "any", name: "Any" }, { id: "jpg", name: "JPEG" } ]
```
In our javascript report HTTP call, it will look like:
```js
{
"custom_filtering": true,
"custom_filter_options": [
{
"id": "any",
"name": "Any"
},
{
"id": "jpg",
"name": "JPG"
}
]
}
```
**Frontend changes:** We introduced a generic `filter` param and a `combo-box` which hooks up into the existing framework for fetching a report.
This works alright, with the limitation of being a single custom filter per report. If we wanted to add, for an instance a `filesize filter`, this will not work for us. _I went through with this approach because it is hard to predict and build abstractions for requirements or problems we don't have yet, or might not have._
## How does it look like?
## More on the bigger picture
The major concern here I have is the solution I introduced might serve the `think small` version of the reporting work, but I don't think it serves the `think big`, I will try to shed some light into why.
Within the current design, It is hard to maintain QueryParams for dynamically generated params (based on the idea of introducing more than one custom filter per report).
To allow ourselves to have more than one generic filter, we will need to:
a. Use the Route's model to retrieve the report's payload (we are now dependent on changes of the QueryParams via computed properties)
b. After retrieving the payload, we can use the `setupController` to define our dynamic QueryParams based on the custom filters definitions we received from the backend
c. Load a custom filter specific Ember component based on the definitions we received from the backend
* FEATURE: Add `IgnoredUsersSummary` daily job
## Why?
This is part of the [Ability to ignore a user feature](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-ignore-a-user/110254/8).
We want to:
1. Send an automatic group PM that goes out to moderators
2. When {x} users have Ignored the same user, threshold defined by a site setting, default of 5
3. Only send this message every X days which is defined by another site setting
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
```
* FEATURE: Add `Top Ignored Users` report
## Why?
This is part of the [Ability to ignore a user feature](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-ignore-a-user/110254/8), and also part of [this PR](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/7144).
We want to send a System Message daily when a specific count threshold for an ignored is reached. To make this system message informative, we want to link to a report for the Top Ignored Users too.
Sam Saffron
David Taylor
Maja Komel
Tarek Khalil
Osama Sayegh
sau226
Tim Lange
Bianca Nenciu
Gerhard Schlager
Guo Xiang Tan
Rishabh
Dan Ungureanu
Arpit Jalan
Guo Xiang Tan
Jeff Atwood
Joffrey JAFFEUX
Penar Musaraj
Robin Ward
Erick Guan
Simon Cossar
Neil Lalonde
venarius
Tarek Khalil
