Skip to content
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

The Local echo section seems to be outdated #1462

Closed
KitsuneRal opened this issue Jul 31, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

The Local echo section seems to be outdated #1462

KitsuneRal opened this issue Jul 31, 2018 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
clarification An area where the spec could do with being more explicit

Comments

@KitsuneRal
Copy link
Member

The Local echo section now has the following paragraph that seems to predate txnId/transactionId introduction:

Flickering cannot be fully avoided in the current client-server API. Two scenarios need to be considered:

  • The client sends a message and the remote echo arrives on the event stream after the request to send the message completes.
  • The client sends a message and the remote echo arrives on the event stream before the request to send the message completes.
    In the first scenario, the client will receive an event ID when the request to send the message completes. This ID can be used to identify the duplicate event when it arrives on the event stream. However, in the second scenario, the event arrives before the client has obtained an event ID. This makes it impossible to identify it as a duplicate event. This results in the client displaying the message twice for a fraction of a second before the the original request to send the message completes. Once it completes, the client can take remedial actions to remove the duplicate event by looking for duplicate event IDs. A future version of the client-server API will resolve this by attaching the transaction ID of the sending request to the event itself.

Should it be removed or rewritten to reflect the current status (whereas transactionId can be used as an echo identifier)?

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jul 31, 2018

Should it be removed or rewritten to reflect the current status (whereas transactionId can be used as an echo identifier)?

yes!

@turt2live turt2live added the clarification An area where the spec could do with being more explicit label Jul 31, 2018
@turt2live turt2live added this to To do: client-server (prioritized) in August 2018 r0 Aug 14, 2018
turt2live added a commit to turt2live/matrix-doc that referenced this issue Aug 30, 2018
@turt2live turt2live self-assigned this Aug 30, 2018
@turt2live turt2live moved this from To do: client-server (prioritized) to In review (just the issues) in August 2018 r0 Aug 30, 2018
August 2018 r0 automation moved this from In review (just the issues) to Done (this list will be incomplete) Aug 31, 2018
RiotTranslateBot pushed a commit to RiotTranslateBot/matrix-doc that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarification An area where the spec could do with being more explicit
Projects
No open projects
August 2018 r0
  
Done (this list will be incomplete)
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants