fix: Encrypted toggle ignored when creating a discussion by codewithfourtix · Pull Request #41030 · RocketChat/Rocket.Chat

codewithfourtix · 2026-06-21T08:49:26Z

Proposed changes (including videos or screenshots)

The Encrypted toggle in the Create Discussion dialog was destructured in handleCreate but never included in the
rooms.createDiscussion payload. As a result, discussions created from an unencrypted parent room were always created
unencrypted, regardless of the toggle state.

This passes the selected encrypted value to the endpoint, which — along with the REST schema
(RoomsCreateDiscussionProps / RoomsCreateDiscussionSchema) and the server-side createDiscussion handler —
already accepts and honors it. No API or schema changes were required; only the client payload was missing the field.

A regression test was added to CreateDiscussion.spec.tsx that enables the encrypted toggle on an unencrypted parent
room and asserts the rooms.createDiscussion endpoint is called with encrypted: true.

Issue(s)

Closes #39443

Steps to test or reproduce

Have (or create) an unencrypted channel.
Create a discussion inside it and enable the Encrypted toggle.
Create the discussion and open it.

Before: the discussion is created unencrypted despite the toggle being on.
After: the discussion is created encrypted, matching the toggle.

Further comments

This is a one-line client fix — the only missing piece was forwarding the already-supported encrypted flag from the
form to the endpoint. The accompanying test guards against the field being dropped from the payload again.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Fixed the Encrypted toggle in the Create Discussion flow to properly include the user’s encryption selection when creating from an unencrypted parent room, ensuring the discussion is created with the intended encrypted state.

The "Encrypted" toggle in the Create Discussion dialog was destructured in handleCreate but never included in the rooms.createDiscussion payload. As a result, discussions created from an unencrypted parent room were always created unencrypted, regardless of the toggle state. Pass the selected `encrypted` value to the endpoint (which, along with the REST schema, already supports it) and add a regression test. Closes RocketChat#39443

changeset-bot · 2026-06-21T08:49:30Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: cbf8c79

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 3 packages

Name	Type
@rocket.chat/meteor	Patch
@rocket.chat/core-typings	Patch
@rocket.chat/rest-typings	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

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

dionisio-bot · 2026-06-21T08:49:31Z

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

coderabbitai · 2026-06-21T08:49:49Z

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: bd560027-789f-49cc-ad21-dacef16e1574

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d065200 and cbf8c79.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.spec.tsx

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.spec.tsx

📜 Recent review details

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout. (1)

GitHub Check: cubic · AI code reviewer

Walkthrough

A one-line fix adds the encrypted boolean field to the POST /v1/rooms.createDiscussion request payload in CreateDiscussion.tsx. A new test suite with two cases verifies the field is correctly submitted for both enabled and disabled toggle states. A patch changeset is added for @rocket.chat/meteor.

Changes

Encrypted flag fix in Create Discussion

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Payload fix, submission tests, and changeset `apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.tsx`, `apps/meteor/client/components/CreateDiscussion/CreateDiscussion.spec.tsx`, `.changeset/fix-create-discussion-encrypted-flag.md`	`CreateDiscussion.tsx` now passes `encrypted` in the API call payload. A new `Encrypted flag submission` test suite adds two cases: one enables the encrypted toggle after selecting an unencrypted parent room and asserts the API payload includes `encrypted: true`; the second leaves the toggle off and asserts `encrypted: false`. A patch changeset documents the fix.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

Suggested reviewers

aleksandernsilva
juliajforesti

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main bug fix: the Encrypted toggle was being ignored when creating discussions.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The pull request fully addresses issue `#39443` by including the `encrypted` flag in the rooms.createDiscussion payload and adding regression tests.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are directly scoped to fixing the encrypted flag omission and adding test coverage, with no unrelated modifications.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

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

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.}

cubic-dev-ai

No issues found across 3 files

_{Re-trigger cubic}

Shevilll

Clean fix. I traced the form state to be sure this doesn't regress the encrypted-parent case: encrypted defaults to encryptedParentRoom and setValue('encrypted', room.encrypted === true) runs on parent selection, so when the parent is encrypted the payload now correctly carries encrypted: true rather than dropping it. The existing reply: encrypted ? undefined : firstMessage line already lines up with this. Good to have the regression test alongside the fix.

One small suggestion to harden the test: add the inverse assertion — toggle left off on an unencrypted parent → endpoint called with encrypted: false (or the field absent). Right now the test only proves true is forwarded; covering the off case guards against the field accidentally being hardcoded truthy in a future change.

Adds the inverse assertion suggested in review: with the encrypted toggle left off on an unencrypted parent room, the rooms.createDiscussion endpoint is called with encrypted: false. Guards against the field being accidentally hardcoded truthy in a future change.

codewithfourtix · 2026-06-22T07:25:04Z

@Shevilll Thanks for the careful trace i agreed on the encrypted-parent case. Added the inverse assertion as suggested: unencrypted parent + toggle left off now asserts the endpoint receives encrypted: false, so we cover both the true and false paths and guard against the field being hardcoded truthy later -Pushed in cbf8c79

CLAassistant · 2026-11-05T06:03:39Z

All committers have signed the CLA.

codewithfourtix requested a review from a team as a code owner June 21, 2026 08:49

dionisio-bot Bot added the community label Jun 21, 2026

coderabbitai Bot added the type: bug label Jun 21, 2026

cubic-dev-ai Bot reviewed Jun 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Shevilll reviewed Jun 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

fix: Encrypted toggle ignored when creating a discussion - #41030

fix: Encrypted toggle ignored when creating a discussion#41030
codewithfourtix wants to merge 2 commits into
RocketChat:developfrom
codewithfourtix:fix/create-discussion-encrypted-flag

codewithfourtix commented Jun 21, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented Jun 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

dionisio-bot Bot commented Jun 21, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Shevilll left a comment

Uh oh!

codewithfourtix commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

CLAassistant commented Nov 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

codewithfourtix commented Jun 21, 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!

changeset-bot Bot commented Jun 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🦋 Changeset detected

Uh oh!

dionisio-bot Bot commented Jun 21, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Suggested reviewers

Uh oh!

cubic-dev-ai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Shevilll left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codewithfourtix commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

CLAassistant commented Nov 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

codewithfourtix commented Jun 21, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

changeset-bot Bot commented Jun 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

CLAassistant commented Nov 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading