Do not send chat notifications to the original requester

Do not send chat notifications to the original requester.

Created to fix https://code.google.com/p/rietveld/issues/detail?id=401 :
Chat sends notifications for my own rietveld interactions.

Changes staged here: https://skia-codereview-staging.appspot.com/10001/

[techtonik, 2013-03-28 22:24:46]

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/2001/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/2001/codereview/views.py#newcode697
codereview/views.py:697: # context.
There is no further context - a reference is enough, -1 line. =)

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/2001/codereview/views.py#newcode698
codereview/views.py:698: emails = filter(lambda email: email !=
request.user.email(), emails)
[e for e in emails if e != request.user.email()] ?

[rmistry, 2013-03-29 13:23:42]

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/2001/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/2001/codereview/views.py#newcode697
codereview/views.py:697: # context.
On 2013/03/28 22:24:46, techtonik wrote:
> There is no further context - a reference is enough, -1 line. =)

Done :)

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/2001/codereview/views.py#newcode698
codereview/views.py:698: emails = filter(lambda email: email !=
request.user.email(), emails)
On 2013/03/28 22:24:46, techtonik wrote:
> [e for e in emails if e != request.user.email()] ?

Done.

[techtonik, 2013-03-29 14:04:44]

LGTM. I've checked the demo - it's good. Nothing blocking - I can commit it
right away, but could you also check if works with sets?

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/7001/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/7001/codereview/views.py#newcode689
codereview/views.py:689: emails = [issue.owner.email()]
How do you think - is it a good idea to make emails a set?

  emails = set()
  emails.add(issue.owner.email())

[rmistry, 2013-03-29 14:15:40]

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/7001/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/7001/codereview/views.py#newcode689
codereview/views.py:689: emails = [issue.owner.email()]
On 2013/03/29 14:04:44, techtonik wrote:
> How do you think - is it a good idea to make emails a set?
> 
>   emails = set()
>   emails.add(issue.owner.email())

I think thats a good idea and it seems to work. Done.
Changes hosted here: https://skia-codereview-staging.appspot.com/10001/

[techtonik, 2013-03-29 14:57:08]

More comments below. =)

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py#newcode689
codereview/views.py:689: emails = set(issue.owner.email())
The tricky part here is to be sure that email is not a string:

  >>> set('email@example.com')
  set(['a', '@', 'c', 'e', 'i', 'm', 'l', 'o', '.', 'p', 'x'])

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py#newcode691
codereview/views.py:691: emails = emails.union(issue.reviewers)
email.update(issue.reviewers) ?

http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#set

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py#newcode697
codereview/views.py:697: emails.remove(request.user.email())
emails.discard() will also remove one condition from the if clause.

[rmistry, 2013-03-29 15:15:24]

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py
File codereview/views.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py#newcode689
codereview/views.py:689: emails = set(issue.owner.email())
On 2013/03/29 14:57:09, techtonik wrote:
> The tricky part here is to be sure that email is not a string:
> 
>   >>> set('email@example.com')
>   set(['a', '@', 'c', 'e', 'i', 'm', 'l', 'o', '.', 'p', 'x'])

Looks like issue.owner.email() is always a string, not sure why my previous
experiment seemed to work. I now tested it with logging. Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py#newcode691
codereview/views.py:691: emails = emails.union(issue.reviewers)
On 2013/03/29 14:57:09, techtonik wrote:
> email.update(issue.reviewers) ?
> 
> http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#set

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/8099046/diff/12001/codereview/views.py#newcode697
codereview/views.py:697: emails.remove(request.user.email())
On 2013/03/29 14:57:09, techtonik wrote:
> emails.discard() will also remove one condition from the if clause.

Done.

[techtonik, 2013-03-29 15:30:45]

Perfect. I have to leave now. Need a working station to commit it, which will
unlikely to happen before tomorrow if nobody else steps up.

[techtonik, 2013-03-29 15:31:15]

LGTM.

[techtonik, 2013-03-30 10:04:22]

Committed as
https://code.google.com/p/rietveld/source/detail?r=9d5c30b9d19f53754e67933216...
and live. ;)

[rmistry, 2013-04-01 11:33:58]

On 2013/03/30 10:04:22, techtonik wrote:
> Committed as
>
https://code.google.com/p/rietveld/source/detail?r=9d5c30b9d19f53754e67933216...
> and live. ;)

Thank you!

Marc-Antoine can we commit this into the chromium branch and push as well?

[techtonik, 2013-04-01 12:28:28]

Oops. Hit the wrong form to write the comment. Now the description is lost. =/

[rmistry, 2013-04-01 12:29:27]

On 2013/04/01 12:28:28, techtonik wrote:
> Oops. Hit the wrong form to write the comment. Now the description is lost. =/

Fixed it.

[rmistry, 2013-04-02 19:12:27]

On 2013/04/01 12:29:27, rmistry wrote:
> On 2013/04/01 12:28:28, techtonik wrote:
> > Oops. Hit the wrong form to write the comment. Now the description is lost.
=/
> 
> Fixed it.

Marc-Antoine pushed this to codereview.chromium.org as well. Thanks!