-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
autocomplete client tags #415
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
From out-of-band discussion about how this should interact with transient / no-store TAGMSG (context on ircv3/ircv3-ideas#68), a suggestion:
An alternative suggestion was to make all TAGMSG transient by default, and add a new tag that can be attached to messages that should be stored. I weakly prefer using a prefix, but I'm very open to being convinced otherwise. |
This plugin implements the first version of ircv3/ircv3-specifications#415
I wrote a quick implementation of this as a Limnoria plugin; if client devs want to try it, I have a bot on testnet.oragono.io named Limnoria (and also in channel #limnoria) so you can send commands like |
I think to build a useful client implementation of this, I'd need to have a way to know that a nick is a bot that accepts commands, with what prefix, and that it can respond to autocomplete requests. Is that something you imagine being solved by metadata? |
In private, it shouldn't be an issue to always send a request. In channels, it remains to be decided. I see three options:
|
It's still not clear how a client can detect whether a private message is to a bot at all, and the privacy implications of that are a non-starter for me. |
In private they don't need to detect the message is to a bot, they can send completion requests systematically |
Right, sending auto completion requests to every user that I have a private message conversation with is a privacy non-starter. |
In terms of detecting a bot at all, Insp has the |
@jwheare I get there are privacy issues, but how is it different to send completion requests to "anyone" vs "anyone who says they are a bot"? |
For sure, there is an added risk of spoofing/intercepting. That's not an argument in favour of just spamming it to everyone though. Maybe the solution from a client-implementation perspective is to require quite explicit user interaction to activate this thing. |
Yes, indeed, that sounds like the right solution in PMs. As an alternative to metadata, what about making bots send a tag to say "hey I am a bot, please offer the autocompletion dialog"? (similarly to what OTR does with its magic whitespaces) |
Hmm forget it, that's an ugly hack. @DanielOaks That sounds like a good idea. IIRC, Unreal has a +B mode too, and makes it visible in whois (335, RPL_WHOISBOT). So if we combine both, it would work for channels (via WHOX) and PMs (via WHOIS) |
It looks like Unreal, Insp, and us all do the |
I think I'm going to pass on implementation support for this as it stands. We can add this back to the roadmap if support picks up from other devs. |
|
||
Clients will probably want to send an autocomplete-request when a user triggers | ||
the client's nick completion mechanism (usually the tab key) and there is no | ||
matching nick, or their own command completion mechanism. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How should this look on mobile? Usually clients present a list of auto-complete suggestions while the user is typing.
These are two new client tags, to allow autocompletion of bot commands.
It's not yet implemented and some parts are not written yet, but I'd like your opinions on this
rendered view