Summary: Just a small patch to address bad messaging
Test Plan: Run one new test!
Reviewers: jackie, juan
Reviewed By: jackie, juan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D3000
Summary:
ChangeFolder/ChangeLabel still need to call super.isDependentOnTask!
Formalize "retrieve latest models" part of the performLocal process, ensure that it's always /inside/ the transaction that is going to write the changes. This ensures that queueing two tasks for the same thread at the same time don't cause a race...
...condition between the two tasks (end result is currently arbitrary!)
Add "move to label" mail rule to go alongside "Add Label"
Test Plan: All broken... willfix.
Reviewers: juan, evan, jackie
Reviewed By: evan, jackie
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2999
Summary: after refactoring some things last week and spending time futsing with coffeescript, I’m pretty convinced it’s worth moving important parts of the app to ES6 to be able to use ESLint as part of our dev workflow
Test Plan: Run existing tests, tested manually. Did not convert the tests in this diff, breaking one part at a time!
Reviewers: evan, juan
Reviewed By: juan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2768
Summary:
- In Gmail all threads /must/ belong to either All Mail, Trash and Spam, and
they are mutually exclusive, so we need to make sure that any add/remove
label operation still guarantees that constraint
- Update ChangeLabelsTask to modify the set of labels to add and remove
based on this rule
- Update tasksFor archiving, moving to trash and moving to spam so they
don't affect any other labels in the thread, as gmail does.
- Removing from view /will/ remove any current labels, but will also
move between all mail and trash as needed
- Remove Inbox, Trash and Spam from the CategoryPicker, as Gmail does
Test Plan: - Unit tests
Reviewers: drew, evan, bengotow
Reviewed By: drew, evan, bengotow
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2715
Summary:
Until now, we've been hiding transactions beneath the surface. When you call persistModel, you're implicitly creating a transaction.
You could explicitly create them with `atomically`..., but there were several critical problems that are fixed in this diff:
- Calling persistModel / unpersistModel within a transaction could cause the DatabaseStore to trigger. This could result in other parts of the app making queries /during/
the transaction, potentially before the COMMIT occurred and saved the changes. The new, explicit inTransaction syntax holds all changes until after COMMIT and then triggers.
- Calling atomically and then calling persistModel inside that resulted in us having to check whether a transaction was present and was gross.
- Many parts of the code ran extensive logic inside a promise chained within `atomically`:
BAD:
```
DatabaseStore.atomically =>
DatabaseStore.persistModel(draft) =>
GoMakeANetworkRequestThatReturnsAPromise
```
OVERWHELMINGLY BETTER:
```
DatabaseStore.inTransaction (t) =>
t.persistModel(draft)
.then =>
GoMakeANetworkRequestThatReturnsAPromise
```
Having explicit transactions also puts us on equal footing with Sequelize and other ORMs. Note that you /have/ to call DatabaseStore.inTransaction (t) =>. There is no other way to access the methods that let you alter the database. :-)
Other changes:
- This diff removes Message.labels and the Message-Labels table. We weren't using Message-level labels anywhere, and the table could grow very large.
- This diff changes the page size during initial sync from 250 => 200 in an effort to make transactions a bit faster.
Test Plan: Run tests!
Reviewers: juan, evan
Reviewed By: juan, evan
Differential Revision: https://phab.nylas.com/D2353
