fix: Don't try to create a non-encrypted discussion if the parent room is encrypted #38279

MartinSchoeler · 2026-01-20T20:01:42Z

Proposed changes (including videos or screenshots)

Issue(s)

SUP-955

Steps to test or reproduce

Further comments

Summary by CodeRabbit

New Features
- Encrypted parent rooms now automatically disable the encryption toggle when creating discussions, ensuring child discussions inherit the parent room's encryption status.
- Added visual indicator (encryption icon) for encrypted rooms in room selection.
Tests
- Added test coverage for discussion creation behavior with encrypted parent rooms.
- Added Storybook stories for the discussion creation component with mocked API endpoints.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

…encrypted

dionisio-bot · 2026-01-20T20:01:47Z

Looks like this PR is not ready to merge, because of the following issues:

This PR is missing the 'stat: QA assured' label
This PR is missing the required milestone or project

Please fix the issues and try again

If you have any trouble, please check the PR guidelines

changeset-bot · 2026-01-20T20:01:47Z

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 3fd3df5

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

coderabbitai · 2026-01-20T20:01:52Z

Walkthrough

This PR adds support for creating encrypted discussions with an initial message by detecting when the parent room is encrypted, propagating that status to the CreateDiscussion component, and disabling the encryption toggle accordingly. It includes API field exposure, component logic enhancements, test coverage, and integration updates across multiple action handlers.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
API Query Enhancement `apps/meteor/app/api/server/lib/rooms.ts`	Added `encrypted` field to the findChannelAndPrivateAutocomplete query projection to expose encryption status in autocomplete results.
CreateDiscussion Component `apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.tsx`	Added `encryptedParentRoom` prop to track parent room encryption status. Implemented onParentRoomChange handler to disable encryption toggle and sync encrypted state when a parent room is selected. Enhanced RoomAutoComplete integration with renderRoomIcon to display encryption indicators.
CreateDiscussion Testing & Stories `apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.spec.tsx`, `CreateDiscussion.stories.tsx`	Introduced comprehensive test suite covering snapshot and accessibility tests, plus specific test cases for encrypted parent room behavior (verifying toggle and first message field are disabled). Added Storybook story with mocked API endpoints for discussion creation and room info.
RoomAutoComplete Component `apps/meteor/client/components/RoomAutoComplete/RoomAutoComplete.tsx`	Updated `setSelectedRoom` prop signature from `Dispatch<SetStateAction<IRoom \| undefined>>` to `(room: IRoom \| undefined) => void` for better composability. Enhanced renderItem to include optional icon rendering via `renderRoomIcon`.
Integration Points `apps/meteor/client/components/message/toolbar/useNewDiscussionMessageAction.tsx`, `apps/meteor/client/views/room/composer/messageBox/MessageBoxActionsToolbar/hooks/useCreateDiscussionAction.tsx`	Updated both action handlers to pass `encryptedParentRoom={room?.encrypted}` prop when invoking CreateDiscussion modal.

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    actor User
    participant CreateDiscussion
    participant RoomAutoComplete
    participant API
    participant Form

    User->>CreateDiscussion: Open create discussion modal
    CreateDiscussion->>CreateDiscussion: Initialize with encryptedParentRoom prop
    User->>RoomAutoComplete: Select parent room
    RoomAutoComplete->>API: Fetch room details (with encrypted field)
    API-->>RoomAutoComplete: Return room with encrypted status
    RoomAutoComplete->>CreateDiscussion: onParentRoomChange callback
    CreateDiscussion->>CreateDiscussion: Detect if room is encrypted
    alt Encrypted Parent Room
        CreateDiscussion->>Form: Set encrypted toggle disabled
        CreateDiscussion->>Form: Sync encrypted value with parent status
    end
    CreateDiscussion->>RoomAutoComplete: Display encryption icon if needed
    User->>CreateDiscussion: Submit form
    CreateDiscussion->>API: Create discussion with encrypted + message
    API-->>User: Discussion created successfully

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes

Possibly related PRs

PR #36799: Modifies CreateDiscussion component similarly with encryption hint improvements, indicating overlapping feature development in the encrypted discussion workflow.

Suggested labels

stat: ready to merge, stat: QA assured

Suggested reviewers

dougfabris
yash-rajpal

Poem

🐰 A rabbit hops through encrypted rooms,
Now first messages bloom!
Parent's secret key unlocked the gate,
Discussions secure—hoorah! How great! 🔐✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main fix: preventing non-encrypted discussion creation from encrypted parent rooms.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR successfully implements the fix for SUP-955 by adding logic to disable encrypted field when parent room is encrypted and passing encrypted status appropriately.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes directly address the linked issue: adding encrypted parent room detection, disabling encryption toggle appropriately, updating component signatures, and adding test coverage.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment
Commit unit tests in branch fix/encrypted-discussion

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

codecov · 2026-01-20T20:12:20Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 76.47059% with 20 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 70.83%. Comparing base (eb5a1ef) to head (3fd3df5).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #38279      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    70.74%   70.83%   +0.09%     
===========================================
  Files         3142     3144       +2     
  Lines       108929   109338     +409     
  Branches     19631    19621      -10     
===========================================
+ Hits         77064    77455     +391     
- Misses       29865    29885      +20     
+ Partials      2000     1998       -2

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	`60.32% <76.92%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
e2e-api	`48.07% <ø> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
unit	`72.00% <75.90%> (+0.15%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

github-actions · 2026-01-20T20:15:57Z

📦 Docker Image Size Report

➡️ Changes

Service	Current	Baseline	Change
sum of all images	0B	0B	0B
account-service	0B	0B	0B
authorization-service	0B	0B	0B
ddp-streamer-service	0B	0B	0B
omnichannel-transcript-service	0B	0B	0B
presence-service	0B	0B	0B
queue-worker-service	0B	0B	0B
rocketchat	0B	0B	0B

📊 Historical Trend

---
config:
  theme: "dark"
  xyChart:
    width: 900
    height: 400
---
xychart
  title "Image Size Evolution by Service (Last 30 Days + This PR)"
  x-axis ["11/18 22:53", "11/19 23:02", "11/21 16:49", "11/24 17:34", "11/27 22:32", "11/28 19:05", "12/01 23:01", "12/02 21:57", "12/03 21:00", "12/04 18:17", "12/05 21:56", "12/08 20:15", "12/09 22:17", "12/10 23:26", "12/11 21:56", "12/12 22:45", "12/13 01:34", "12/15 22:31", "12/16 22:18", "12/17 21:04", "12/18 23:12", "12/19 23:27", "12/20 21:03", "12/22 18:54", "12/23 16:16", "12/24 19:38", "12/25 17:51", "12/26 13:18", "12/29 19:01", "12/30 20:52", "01/21 17:25 (PR)"]
  y-axis "Size (GB)" 0 --> 0.5
  line "account-service" [0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.00]
  line "authorization-service" [0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.00]
  line "ddp-streamer-service" [0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.00]
  line "omnichannel-transcript-service" [0.14, 0.14, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.00]
  line "presence-service" [0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 0.00]
  line "queue-worker-service" [0.14, 0.14, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.13, 0.00]
  line "rocketchat" [0.35, 0.35, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.34, 0.00]

Statistics (last 30 days):

📊 Average: 1.5GiB
⬇️ Minimum: 1.4GiB
⬆️ Maximum: 1.6GiB
🎯 Current PR: 0B

ℹ️ About this report

This report compares Docker image sizes from this build against the develop baseline.

Tag: pr-38279
Baseline: develop
Timestamp: 2026-01-21 17:25:33 UTC
Historical data points: 30

Updated: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:25:33 GMT

cubic-dev-ai

No issues found across 8 files

abhinavkrin

The endpoint rooms.createDiscussion does allow creating unencrypted discussions for encrypted rooms. It accepts a field encrypted which if not provided defaults to the parent room encryption status.
So, if the endpoint allows it, IMO, we should not prevent it from being done in the UI.

The encrypted parent room

The unecrypted discussion

MartinSchoeler · 2026-01-21T19:09:00Z

The endpoint rooms.createDiscussion does allow creating unencrypted discussions for encrypted rooms. It accepts a field encrypted which if not provided defaults to the parent room encryption status. So, if the endpoint allows it, IMO, we should not prevent it from being done in the UI.

The encrypted parent room

The unecrypted discussion

Currently the UI is always creating an encrypted discussion, just to be sure, lets confirm with product what is the expected behavior, since FE and BE have discordant behaviors

fix: Don't try to create a non-encrypted discussion if the parent is …

41eca65

…encrypted

MartinSchoeler and others added 2 commits January 21, 2026 14:11

test: add tests

cb2a15b

Merge branch 'develop' into fix/encrypted-discussion

3fd3df5

MartinSchoeler marked this pull request as ready for review January 21, 2026 17:13

MartinSchoeler requested review from a team as code owners January 21, 2026 17:13

cubic-dev-ai bot reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

abhinavkrin reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

fix: Don't try to create a non-encrypted discussion if the parent room is encrypted #38279

fix: Don't try to create a non-encrypted discussion if the parent room is encrypted #38279

MartinSchoeler commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

dionisio-bot bot commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

abhinavkrin left a comment

Uh oh!

MartinSchoeler commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

fix: Don't try to create a non-encrypted discussion if the parent room is encrypted #38279

Are you sure you want to change the base?

fix: Don't try to create a non-encrypted discussion if the parent room is encrypted #38279

Conversation

MartinSchoeler commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Proposed changes (including videos or screenshots)

Issue(s)

Steps to test or reproduce

Further comments

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

dionisio-bot bot commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ No Changeset found

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Sequence Diagram

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

Suggested reviewers

Poem

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

📦 Docker Image Size Report

➡️ Changes

📊 Historical Trend

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

abhinavkrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MartinSchoeler commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

MartinSchoeler commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading