This commit main goal was to comply with Zeitwerk and properly rely on autoloading. To achieve this, most resources have been namespaced under the `Chat` module.
- Given all models are now namespaced with `Chat::` and would change the stored types in DB when using polymorphism or STI (single table inheritance), this commit uses various Rails methods to ensure proper class is loaded and the stored name in DB is unchanged, eg: `Chat::Message` model will be stored as `"ChatMessage"`, and `"ChatMessage"` will correctly load `Chat::Message` model.
- Jobs are now using constants only, eg: `Jobs::Chat::Foo` and should only be enqueued this way
Notes:
- This commit also used this opportunity to limit the number of registered css files in plugin.rb
- `discourse_dev` support has been removed within this commit and will be reintroduced later
<!-- NOTE: All pull requests should have tests (rspec in Ruby, qunit in JavaScript). If your code does not include test coverage, please include an explanation of why it was omitted. -->
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.
Currently, the reviewables tab in the user menu shows pending reviewables at the top of the menu and fills the remaining space in the menu with old/handled reviewables. This PR makes the revieables tab show only pending reviewables and hides the tab altogether from the menu if there are no pending reviewables. We're going to follow-up with another change soon that will show pending reviewables in the main tab of the user menu.
Internal topic: t/73220.
`pending`, `approved`, `rejected`, `ignored`, and `deleted` scope method were accessible on all model classes… 😂
Fixes `Creating scope :pending. Overwriting existing method DiscoursePostEvent::EventDate.pending.` warnings.
* FIX: Clear stale status of reloaded reviewables
Navigating away from and back to the reviewables reloaded Reviewable
records, but did not clear the "stale" attribute.
* FEATURE: Show user who last acted on reviewable
When a user acts on a reviewable, all other clients are notified and a
generic "reviewable was resolved by someone" notice was shown instead of
the buttons. There is no need to keep secret the username of the acting
user.
Subclasses must call #delete_user_actions inside build_actions to support user deletion. The method adds a delete user bundle, which has a delete and a delete + block option. Every subclass is responsible for implementing these actions.
The previous commits removed reviewables leading to a bad user
experience. This commit updates the status, replaces actions with a
message and greys out the reviewable.
Recalculating a ReviewableFlaggedPost's score after rejecting or ignoring it sets the score as 0, which means that we can't find them after reviewing. They don't surpass the minimum priority threshold and are hidden.
Additionally, we only want to use agreed flags when calculating the different priority thresholds.
Adds a webhook to notify when a reviewable score is updated.
This is different from created or status changed as additional flags can
roll in and update the score without updating status. Useful for applications
looking to integrate in with Discourse's scores
This filter hides reviewables with a score lower than the "reviewable_low_priority_threshold" setting. We only use reviewables that already met this threshold to calculate the Medium and High priority filters.
* FEATURE: Review every post using the review queue.
If the `review_every_post` setting is enabled, posts created and edited by regular uses are sent to the review queue so staff can review them. We'll skip PMs and posts created or edited by TL4 or staff users.
Staff can choose to:
- Approve the post (nothing happens)
- Approve and restore the post (if deleted)
- Approve and unhide the post (if hidden)
- Reject and delete it
- Reject and keep deleted (if deleted)
- Reject and suspend the user
- Reject and silence the user
* Update config/locales/server.en.yml
Co-authored-by: Robin Ward <robin.ward@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Robin Ward <robin.ward@gmail.com>
The API now accepts an array called "ids" to select specific items. This parameter is not present on the UI.
Example usage: "yoursite.com/review.json?ids[]=1&ids[]=2"
Feature for `Must Approve Users` setup. When a user is rejected, a staff member can optionally set a reason for audit purposes. In addition, feedback email can be sent to the user.
Meta: https://meta.discourse.org/t/account-rejection-email/103112/8
* FIX: Store Reviewable's force_review as a boolean.
Using the `force_review` flag raises the score to hit the minimum visibility threshold. This strategy turned out to be ineffective on sites with a high number of flags, where these values could rapidly fluctuate.
This change adds a `force_review` column on the reviewables table and modifies the `Reviewable#list_for` method to show these items when passing the `status: :pending` option, even if the score is not high enough. ReviewableQueuedPosts and ReviewableUsers are always created using this option.
We were getting errors like this in Reviewables in some cases:
```
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid (PG::AmbiguousColumn: ERROR: column reference "category_id" is ambiguous
LINE 4: ...TRUE) OR (reviewable_by_group_id IN (NULL))) AND (category_i...
```
The problem that was making everything go boom is that plugins can add their own custom filters for Reviewables. If one is doing an INNER JOIN on topics, which has its own category_id column, we would get the above AmbiguousColumn error. The solution here is to just make all references to the reviewable columns in the list_for and viewable_by code prefixed by the table name e.g. reviewables.category_id.
The previous concurrency-safe implementation relied on catching an
index conflict and following through appropriately. Unfortunately
those conflicts were logged to Postgres and there is no easy way
to turn them off.
This solution approaches the problem differently. It should still
be safe under concurrency and not log errors.
Zeitwerk simplifies working with dependencies in dev and makes it easier reloading class chains.
We no longer need to use Rails "require_dependency" anywhere and instead can just use standard
Ruby patterns to require files.
This is a far reaching change and we expect some followups here.
Forums without previously calculated scores would return the same values
for low/medium/high sensitivity. Now those are scaled based on the
default value.
The default value has also been changed from 10.0 to 12.5 based on
observing data from live discourse forums.
If you click a (?) icon beside the reviewable status a pop up will
appear with expanded informatio that explains how the reviewable got its
score, and how it compares to system thresholds.
If a post is flagged after an action was already performed on it, it
will update the previous Reviable instance and not create a new one.
The notification logic was implemented in the :create callback which was
completely skipped in this case.
There are situations where depending on site settings, actions could be
taken due to flags (for example, hiding a post) but those actions were
not visibile in the review queue due to visibility settings.
This patch makes sure that the minimum score required for an action such
as hiding a post needs to meet the visibility for a moderator to see it.
* UX: Rename "Keep Post" to "Keep Post Hidden" when hidden
This is based on this feedback:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/category-group-review-moderation/116478/19
When a post is hidden this makes the operation much more clear.
* REFACTOR: Better support for aliases for actions
Allow calls on alias actions and delegate to the original one.
This is less code but also simplifies tests where the action might
be "agree_and_keep" or "agree_and_keep_hidden" which are the same.
Isaac Janzen
Loïc Guitaut
Joffrey JAFFEUX
Daniel Waterworth
David Taylor
Osama Sayegh
Roman Rizzi
Jarek Radosz
Dan Ungureanu
Mark VanLandingham
Jeff Wong
Krzysztof Kotlarek
Arpit Jalan
jbrw
Martin Brennan
Robin Ward
Penar Musaraj
Mark VanLandingham
