Showing Bot Markers.

[plugyawn]

What does this PR do? Adds bot markers to bots.

Partial fix for #1155.

Tested?

• [x] Manually
• [x] Existing tests (adapted, if necessary)
• [ ] New tests added (for any new behavior)
• [x] Passed linting & tests (each commit)

Commit flow

• first commit adds BOT_MARKER to symbols.py. Currently set to robot face, U+1F916 (🤖).
• second commit adds necessary changes in ui_mappings.py to associate BOT_MARKER with the "bot" status, as compared to the "inactive" status they were assigned earlier.
• third commit checks if it is indeed a bot and associates the marker to it.

Notes & Questions

• unsure about how to fix the black background against the robot emoji. I'm guessing it's because it's not a traditional character? I couldn't really choose a better character.

Visual changes

[neiljp]

@plugyawn I mentioned about the symbol in the stream. Otherwise please use the standard commit text style for zulip-terminal as indicated in the README (and see gitlint), and adjust the commit flow ready for merging.

This looks straightforward; I'm not sure if we explicitly need tests for this.

In a bot-related way, you might consider how the user popup can be improved for the case of bots, as a follow-up.

[plugyawn]

On it! I'll update the commit text and let you know asap.

[neiljp]

@plugyawn I'm mainly waiting for a commit reflow here, which may be simple, but just checked functionality again as it stands as this seems a quick PR. However, it seems that the symbol you're using is styled to be black on a white background somehow, and that is bleeding into the user search box names too. That doesn't seem to be intentional, so I wonder if it's part of the symbol itself somehow?

[plugyawn]

@neiljp updated the commit flow.

[neiljp]

Also note that the formatting being in the wrong commit would be picked up if you ran tools/check-branch.

[neiljp]

See other feedback in the stream. I resolved my issue with it not working at all on one of my computers.

[srdeotarse]

I have reviewed the PR and have posted some questions in the stream.

[neiljp]

@plugyawn This PR would be good to close out, now you've got feedback too?

[neiljp]

@plugyawn Thanks for working on this :+1: I reworked this slightly after a preliminary refactor and a few adjustments, and this work is effectively merged as #1377 :tada: