- Remove `messageThreadId` from `messageChannelMessageAssociation`
- Update thread merging
- Update all queries which were dependent on this field
- Update some raw queries by using `twentyORM` instead
---------
Co-authored-by: Weiko <corentin@twenty.com>
# Feature: Email thread members visibility
For this feature we implemented a chip and a dropdown menu that allows
users to check which workspace members can see an email thread, as
depicted on issue (#4199).
## Implementations
- create a new database table (messageThreadMember)
- relations between `messageThreadMembers` and the relevant existing
tables (`MessageThread` and `WorkspaceMembers`)
- added a new column to the `MessageThread table`: `everyone` - to
indicate that all workspace members can see the email thread
- create a new repository for the new table, including new queries
- edit the queries so that the new fields could be fetched from the
frontend
- created a component `MultiChip`, that shows a group of user avatars,
instead of just one
- created a component, `ShareDropdownMenu`, that shows up once the
`EmailThreadMembersChip` is clicked. On this menu you can see which
workspace members can view the email thread.
## Screenshots
Here are some screenshots of the frontend components that were created:
Chip with everyone in the workspace being part of the message thread:
Chip with just one member of the workspace (the owner) being part of the
message thread:
Chip with some members of the workspace being part of the message
thread:
How the chip looks in a message thread:
Dropdown that opens when you click on the chip:
## Testing and Mock data
We also added mock data (TypeORM seeds), focusing on adding mock data
related to message thread members.
## Conclusion
As some of the changes that we needed to do, regarding the change of
visibility of the message thread, were not covered by the existing
documentation, we were told to open a PR and ask for feedback on this
part of the implementation. Right now, our implementation is focused on
displaying who is part of an email thread.
Feel free to let us know which steps we should follow next :)
---------
Co-authored-by: Simão Sanguinho <simao.sanguinho@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Bordeau <bordeau.lucas@gmail.com>
## Context
LabelIdentifier and ImageIdentifier are metadata info attached to
objectMetadata that are used to display a record in a more readable way.
Those columns point to existing fields that are part of the object.
For example, for a relation picker of a person, we will show a record
using the "name" labelIdentifier and the "avatarUrl" imageIdentifier.
<img width="215" alt="Screenshot 2024-07-11 at 18 45 51"
src="https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/assets/1834158/488f8294-0d7c-4209-b763-2499716ef29d">
Currently, the FE has a specific logic for company and people objects
and we have a way to update this value via the API for custom objects,
but the code is not flexible enough to change other standard objects.
This PR updates the WorkspaceEntity API so we can now provide the
labelIdentifier and imageIdentifier in the WorkspaceEntity decorator.
Example:
```typescript
@WorkspaceEntity({
standardId: STANDARD_OBJECT_IDS.activity,
namePlural: 'activities',
labelSingular: 'Activity',
labelPlural: 'Activities',
description: 'An activity',
icon: 'IconCheckbox',
labelIdentifierStandardId: ACTIVITY_STANDARD_FIELD_IDS.title,
})
@WorkspaceIsSystem()
export class ActivityWorkspaceEntity extends BaseWorkspaceEntity {
@WorkspaceField({
standardId: ACTIVITY_STANDARD_FIELD_IDS.title,
type: FieldMetadataType.TEXT,
label: 'Title',
description: 'Activity title',
icon: 'IconNotes',
})
title: string;
...
```
This PR introduce a new decorator named `@WorkspaceJoinColumn`, the goal
of this one is to manually declare the join columns inside the workspace
entities, so we don't have to rely on `ObjectRecord` type.
This decorator can be used that way:
```typescript
@WorkspaceRelation({
standardId: ACTIVITY_TARGET_STANDARD_FIELD_IDS.company,
type: RelationMetadataType.MANY_TO_ONE,
label: 'Company',
description: 'ActivityTarget company',
icon: 'IconBuildingSkyscraper',
inverseSideTarget: () => CompanyWorkspaceEntity,
inverseSideFieldKey: 'activityTargets',
})
@WorkspaceIsNullable()
company: Relation<CompanyWorkspaceEntity> | null;
// The argument is the name of the relation above
@WorkspaceJoinColumn('company')
companyId: string | null;
```
This PR is replacing and removing all the raw queries and repositories
with the new `TwentyORM` and injection system using
`@InjectWorkspaceRepository`.
Some logic that was contained inside repositories has been moved to the
services.
In this PR we're only replacing repositories for calendar feature.
---------
Co-authored-by: Weiko <corentin@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: bosiraphael <raphael.bosi@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
- Rename syncSubStatus to syncStage
- Rename ongoingSyncStartedAt to syncStageStartedAt
- Remove throttlePauseUntil from db and compute it with
syncStageStartedAt and throttleFailureCount
In this PR, I'm refactoring the messaging module into smaller pieces
that have **ONE** responsibility: import messages, clean messages,
handle message participant creation, instead of having ~30 modules (1
per service, jobs, cron, ...). This is mandatory to start introducing
drivers (gmails, office365, ...) IMO. It is too difficult to enforce
common interfaces as we have too many interfaces (30 modules...). All
modules should not be exposed
Right now, we have services that are almost functions:
do-that-and-this.service.ts / do-that-and-this.module.ts
I believe we should have something more organized at a high level and it
does not matter that much if we have a bit of code duplicates.
Note that the proposal is not fully implemented in the current PR that
has only focused on messaging folder (biggest part)
Here is the high level proposal:
- connected-account: token-refresher
- blocklist
- messaging: message-importer, message-cleaner, message-participants,
... (right now I'm keeping a big messaging-common but this will
disappear see below)
- calendar: calendar-importer, calendar-cleaner, ...
Consequences:
1) It's OK to re-implement several times some things. Example:
- error handling in connected-account, messaging, and calendar instead
of trying to unify. They are actually different error handling. The only
things that might be in common is the GmailError => CommonError parsing
and I'm not even sure it makes a lot of sense as these 3 apis might have
different format actually
- auto-creation. Calendar and Messaging could actually have different
rules
2) **We should not have circular dependencies:**
- I believe this was the reason why we had so many modules, to be able
to cherry pick the one we wanted to avoid circular deps. This is not the
right approach IMO, we need architect the whole messaging by defining
high level blocks that won't have circular dependencies by design. If we
encounter one, we should rethink and break the block in a way that makes
sense.
- ex: connected-account.resolver is not in the same module as
token-refresher. ==> connected-account.resolver => message-importer (as
we trigger full sync job when we connect an account) => token-refresher
(as we refresh token on message import).
connected-account.resolver and token-refresher both in connected-account
folder but should be in different modules. Otherwise it's a circular
dependency. It does not mean that we should create 1 module per service
as it was done before
In a nutshell: The code needs to be thought in term of reponsibilities
and in a way that enforce high level interfaces (and avoid circular
dependencies)
Bonus: As you can see, this code is also removing a lot of code because
of the removal of many .module.ts (also because I'm removing the sync
scripts v2 feature flag end removing old code)
Bonus: I have prefixed services name with Messaging to improve dev xp.
GmailErrorHandler could be different between MessagingGmailErrorHandler
and CalendarGmailErrorHandler for instance
