[IMPROVE] Add groups to the directory channels list

[matheusbsilva137]

Proposed changes (including videos or screenshots)

• Add groups (private channels) to the directory channels list. Only groups in which the logged user is subscribed are shown in the list.

Issue(s)

Task - ClickUp

Steps to test or reproduce

Open Directory > Channels. Private channels (groups) will also be shown in the list.

Further comments

[sampaiodiego]

We'll need to find a better way to do this. The way you're proposing doesn't work in case the first find findByNameOrFNameAndTypeIncludingTeamRooms returns a long list of private channels the user is not a member of, so when calling getSubscribedRoomsForUserWithDetails it won't return anything, so the result from the endpoint will be empty, even though there are public channels that should have been returned.

one solution we could do is similar to the one implemented on teams.listRooms, which consists in first getting channels the user is member of and then use those channels in an $or statement to get the private channels from that list. but let's discuss the best approach.

[KevLehman]

Adding to what Diego was saying, the way we did on other places was to first get the subscriptions of the user (or the __rooms prop from the user if possible) to know to which channels the user has access. Then, we used that in a query to fetch public & private channels that the user can see.

There are examples of this @ spotlight, teams.listRooms and other endpoints too.

[KevLehman]

Left a few comments on the query

[sampaiodiego]

looks like we're almost there 😬

from my tests it is showing private channels I cannot join/see, looks like from teams I've joined or public teams. I guess the first t: { $in: ['p', 'c'] } messed up with this.

what need to be done is exactly what is described on PR's description, so maybe the only required change would be using user.__rooms to find more rooms, wdyt?

[sampaiodiego]

there is an issue on frontend still..

[sampaiodiego]

just a small change as both are equivalent but this is much easier to read:

Suggested change

	return this._db.find({ teamMain: { $exists: true, $eq: true } }, options);
	return this._db.find({ teamMain: true }, options);

[sampaiodiego]

sry, a picky naming suggestion, since this is already on "rooms" model, I think we don't need to say we're finding rooms:

Suggested change

	findTeamMainRooms(options) {
	findTeamMain(options) {

if my other suggestion is accepted, this method might not be needed anymore though

[sampaiodiego]

@KevLehman 's suggestion was great, but finding and storing all main rooms here even though none of them might be used if "result" doesn't have any team doesn't seem the best approach.

My suggestion would be:

• filter results to get all rooms with teams
• perform a find grabbing only the name of that rooms
• map results to add the belongsTo field

rough example

const result = Rooms.findByNameOrFNameAndRoomIdsIncludingTeamRooms( ..... );
const results = result.fetch();

const teamIds = results.filter(({ teamId }) => teamId).map(({ teamId }) => teamId);

const teams = Rooms.findByIds(teamIds, { fields: { name: 1 } });

return results.map((room) => {
  if (room.teamId) {
    const team = teams.find((team) => team._id === room.teamId);
    if (team) room.belongsTo = team.name;
  }
});

changes addressed