Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: Hide last modified field in agenda when unavailable #7722

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 7, 2024

Conversation

microamp
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #3849

The cut-over date is set to 1980-01-01 to be consistent with the behaviour of the JS client.

const updatedDatetime = DateTime.fromISO(agendaStore.meeting.updated).setZone(agendaStore.timezone)
if (!updatedDatetime.isValid || updatedDatetime < DateTime.fromISO('1980-01-01')) {
  return false
}

(in client/agenda/Agenda.vue)

@microamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

The cut-over date is set to 1980-01-01 to be consistent with the behaviour of the JS client.

We may choose to implement the filter in the backend code to ensure consistency across all clients in the future.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.80%. Comparing base (b00dfd3) to head (f121127).
Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7722      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.79%   88.80%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         296      296              
  Lines       41319    41330      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        36688    36703      +15     
+ Misses       4631     4627       -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@microamp microamp marked this pull request as ready for review July 21, 2024 01:36
@@ -294,6 +294,8 @@ def test_meeting_agenda(self):
(slot.time + slot.duration).astimezone(meeting.tz()).strftime("%H%M"),
))
self.assertContains(r, f"shown in the {meeting.tz()} time zone")
updated = meeting.updated().astimezone(meeting.tz()).strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %Z")
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please double check for me that this isn't prone to race condition. Same with line 314 below. Otherwise, I'm happy to patch it with a mock return value instead of directly calling meeting.updated().

P.S. I encountered some errors locally earlier, but I haven't been able to reproduce them since, which made me think that it might be related to race condition.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the tests all run in a single thread in a single process for now - you can't be fighting a race.

It would be nice to be able to use threading, but we have dependencies that would have to change (and we would have to rewrite our custom harness around the django test framework.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. Maybe it was a bug I accidentally introduced while updating the code locally. It doesn't appear to be there anymore.

Faster tests would be nice in the future.

@@ -7,7 +7,9 @@
{% filter center:72 %}{{ schedule.meeting.agenda_info_note|striptags|wordwrap:72|safe }}{% endfilter %}
{% endif %}
{% filter center:72 %}{{ schedule.meeting.date|date:"F j" }}-{% if schedule.meeting.date.month != schedule.meeting.end_date.month %}{{ schedule.meeting.end_date|date:"F " }}{% endif %}{{ schedule.meeting.end_date|date:"j, Y" }}{% endfilter %}
{% if updated|date:"Y-m-d" >= "1980-01-01" %}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're creating a y10k bug here, aren't you?

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to do this in the template is updated.timestamp >= 315532800 which is a pretty awful magic number (it's the number of seconds between 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z and 1980-01-01T00:00:00Z).

I wonder if we can move the check into the view and avoid passing bad data to the template / javascript

Copy link
Contributor Author

@microamp microamp Jul 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for having a look.

You're creating a y10k bug here, aren't you?

I'm not sure. But updated will always be a datetime object, and the year must be four digits (based on the C standard). https://docs.python.org/3/library/datetime.html#strftime-and-strptime-format-codes

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to do this in the template is updated.timestamp >= 315532800 which is a pretty awful magic number (it's the number of seconds between 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z and 1980-01-01T00:00:00Z).

I wonder how 1980-01-01 was selected as the cutover date. The default value ietf.meeting.models.Meeting.updated uses is 1970-01-01. If that was the edge case to cater for, updated.timestamp > 0 would've been sufficient, and more readable. I may be missing some context here though.

I wonder if we can move the check into the view and avoid passing bad data to the template / javascript

I can return "date": null (typo) "updated": null back if the date is too old (i.e. pre-1980), and both the JS client and the template can check for null. But this means that the behaviour of the API will change.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're creating a y10k bug here, aren't you?

I'm not sure. But updated will always be a datetime object, and the year must be four digits (based on the C standard). https://docs.python.org/3/library/datetime.html#strftime-and-strptime-format-codes

Yeah - in the year 10000, four digits is no longer adequate so it'll roll over and the check will fail

>>> "10000-01-01" < "1980-01-01"
True

(Obviously it's not very likely this code will still be running in ~ 8000 years, so this is pretty pedantic)

Unfortunately, the only way I can see to do this in the template is updated.timestamp >= 315532800 which is a pretty awful magic number (it's the number of seconds between 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z and 1980-01-01T00:00:00Z).

I wonder how 1980-01-01 was selected as the cutover date. The default value ietf.meeting.models.Meeting.updated uses is 1970-01-01. If that was the edge case to cater for, updated.timestamp > 0 would've been sufficient, and more readable. I may be missing some context here though.

I suspect it's just an arbitrary date that's long enough ago that we don't care about the distinction and isn't right up against the Unix epoch start so that time zone handling errors won't crop up.

I wonder if we can move the check into the view and avoid passing bad data to the template / javascript

I can return "date": null (typo) "updated": null back if the date is too old (i.e. pre-1980), and both the JS client and the template can check for null. But this means that the behaviour of the API will change.

The API exists only to support the agenda, so as long as we update that we're ok.

The Meeting.updated() method is also used to set m.cached_updated that's used in a couple of templates - those will also need a tweak to handle a None value..

Discussed with Robert and the only real concern is that we end up with a method that returns Optional[datetime.datetime], which is a more complicated signature. I think that's ok, because it reflects that this method really may not have a valid response. Better to use None than to use a magic timestamp.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the explanation.

What I meant to say is that the edge case wouldn't have been possible, as the year cannot be more than four digits.

datetime(10000, 1, 1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: year 10000 is out of range
datetime(9999, 12, 31) + timedelta(days=1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
OverflowError: date value out of range

Re: Meeting.updated(), I'll update it as per the discussion above, and update the callers of the method accordingly. Thanks for pointing out that m.cached_updated also needs attention!

Copy link
Contributor Author

@microamp microamp Jul 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I took a closer look at what m.cached_updated is being used for - it's for the DTSTAMP property in the .ics files. e.g. https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/blob/main/ietf/templates/meeting/important_dates_for_meeting.ics#L6

According to RFC 5545, the DTSTAMP property, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545#section-3.8.7.2, is required.

eventprop  = *(
           ;
           ; The following are REQUIRED,
           ; but MUST NOT occur more than once.
           ;
           dtstamp / uid /
           ; ...
           )

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545#section-3.6.1

So, unlike in agenda.txt, we wouldn't be able to hide the value if ietf.meeting.models.Meeting.updated returned None. Let me know if I'm reading it wrong, or if there's a later RFC that says otherwise. (I couldn't find any.)

It's probably better to leave ietf.meeting.models.Meeting.updated as-is. Let me know what you think.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wow, I'm disappointed to learn that datetime is limited that way.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I still think we should make the Meeting.updated() method return None if it doesn't have a date, just so it's not lying. In the specific case where we need a date, I think filling in a sensible fake value as close to the place we need it as possible is the thing to do. Here, maybe when computing cached_updated or in the template tag would be a good place.

Does that seem sensible?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does that seem sensible?

It does. Thanks for your comment. I'll make changes accordingly.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extra commits have been pushed. The Meeting.updated() method now returns Optional[datetime.datetime] instead of datetime.datetime.

Let me know if I missed anything.

P.S. I wrote some additional tests for DTSTAMP, but they need some further work. I will create a separate PR when they're ready.

@richsalz
Copy link
Collaborator

I would suggest adding "semantic-oriented" methods to the right object. See #7197 (the later comments; it took me awhile to get to this point :)

@jennifer-richards
Copy link
Member

I would suggest adding "semantic-oriented" methods to the right object. See #7197 (the later comments; it took me awhile to get to this point :)

Good point. This one is on the Meeting object, which is I think a reasonable place in the hierarchy, though it annoyingly has to pull most of the information from other models.

@microamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

@richsalz Thanks for your comment. I'll have a look at your PR, and see what can be improved here. 👍

@microamp microamp changed the title fix: Hide Updated in agenda.txt if too old fix: Hide last modified field in agenda when unavailable Jul 26, 2024
return max(timeslots_updated, sessions_updated, assignments_updated)
assignments_updated = SchedTimeSessAssignment.objects.filter(schedule__in=[self.schedule, self.schedule.base if self.schedule else None]).aggregate(Max('modified'))["modified__max"]
dts = [timeslots_updated, sessions_updated, assignments_updated]
if valid_only := [dt for dt in dts if dt is not None]:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why do we need the walrus? (we've been avoiding it in the project so far)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(we've been avoiding it in the project so far)

I wasn't aware of that. We don't need it - it's just sugar. It's now removed.

The walrus operator is used a lot in bibxml-service. So I probably assumed it's okay/recommended to use elsewhere.

Comment on lines 377 to 379
dts = [timeslots_updated, sessions_updated, assignments_updated]
if valid_only := [dt for dt in dts if dt is not None]:
return max(valid_only)
return None
valid_only = [dt for dt in dts if dt is not None]
return max(valid_only) if valid_only else None
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider:

dts = set([timeslots_updated, sessions_updated, assignments_updated])
dts.discard(None)
return max(dts) if len(dts)>0 else None

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(this is a pretty small style/readability nit)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll merge this without the above suggestion - if you agree with it, please make another PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TIL discard. Thanks. I'll see if a PR is necessary.

@rjsparks rjsparks merged commit b90820e into ietf-tools:main Aug 7, 2024
9 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 12, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

update timestamp for meeting agendas seem incorrect
4 participants