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

MSC1693: Specify how to handle rejected events in new state res #1693

Merged
merged 24 commits into from Dec 23, 2018

Conversation

@erikjohnston
Copy link
Member

erikjohnston commented Oct 8, 2018

It's possible for events in an an event's auth chain to be rejected due
to not having passed auth (based on the state at the time), so we need
to be explicit about how to handle that case.

Updates MSC #1442

Rendered full doc

Specify how to handle rejected events in new state res
It's possible for events in an an event's auth chain to be rejected due
to not having passed auth (based on the state at the time), so we need
to be explicit about how to handle that case.

@erikjohnston erikjohnston requested a review from matrix-org/spec-core-team Oct 8, 2018

@erikjohnston

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

erikjohnston commented Oct 8, 2018

(Note that you can ask github to show a rich diff, alas it doesn't appear to have a stable link though)

@erikjohnston erikjohnston removed the request for review from matrix-org/spec-core-team Oct 8, 2018

@erikjohnston

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

erikjohnston commented Oct 8, 2018

I also need to think a bit about how to deal with "reverse topological power ordering", in particular:

  1. x's sender has a greater power level than y (calculated by looking at
    their respective auth events), or if

@turt2live turt2live added this to In review (just the PRs) in August 2018 r0 via automation Oct 9, 2018

@erikjohnston erikjohnston requested a review from matrix-org/spec-core-team Oct 9, 2018

@richvdh richvdh referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2018

Closed

clarify the MSC process #1694

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh left a comment

I'm a bit confused about some things here.

In terms of process: I think we need to get some clarity on how this is supposed to work (hence #1694), but I don't think we should be changing existing proposal docs once they are accepted and merged into the spec.

Show resolved Hide resolved proposals/1442-state-resolution.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved proposals/1442-state-resolution.md Outdated
Show resolved Hide resolved proposals/1442-state-resolution.md Outdated

@erikjohnston erikjohnston added this to To Do in Backend Core Team via automation Oct 24, 2018

@erikjohnston erikjohnston moved this from To Do to In Progress: Planned Project Work in Backend Core Team Oct 24, 2018

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Oct 30, 2018

MSC processwise we really should have closed this once it was merged into the spec, and started a new MSC to fix the rejections stuff. But in the interest of minimising bureaucracy let's just wrap it up here and then close this (and merge the result again into the spec).

@erikjohnston

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

erikjohnston commented Oct 31, 2018

MSC processwise we really should have closed this once it was merged into the spec, and started a new MSC to fix the rejections stuff. But in the interest of minimising bureaucracy let's just wrap it up here and then close this (and merge the result again into the spec).

TBH I thought it had been agreed that updating an existing proposal doc was fine in certain circumstances, like adding clarifications or whatever, so long as it is documented that it has been updated.

erikjohnston added some commits Oct 31, 2018

@erikjohnston erikjohnston requested a review from matrix-org/spec-core-team Nov 1, 2018

@neilisfragile neilisfragile moved this from In Progress: Planned Project Work to Review in Backend Core Team Nov 1, 2018

@mscbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Dec 18, 2018

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@KitsuneRal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

KitsuneRal commented Dec 18, 2018

@mscbot concern Fix typos

@KitsuneRal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

KitsuneRal commented Dec 18, 2018

@mscbot resolve Fix typos

I didn't expect FCP to be broken by petty typo fixing request - sorry for the mess.

@mscbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Dec 18, 2018

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@erikjohnston erikjohnston force-pushed the erikj/state_res_rejections branch from e906dd7 to 8fb2bd2 Dec 18, 2018

August 2018 r0 automation moved this from In review (just the PRs) to Reviewer approved Dec 18, 2018

@mscbot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Dec 23, 2018

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 merged commit f714aaa into master Dec 23, 2018

7 checks passed

ci/circleci: build-dev-scripts Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: build-docs Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: build-swagger Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: check-docs Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: validate-docs Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
docs Click details to preview the HTML documentation.
Details
swagger Click to preview the swagger build.
Details

August 2018 r0 automation moved this from Reviewer approved to Done (this list will be incomplete) Dec 23, 2018

Backend Core Team automation moved this from Review to Done - Operations Dec 23, 2018

@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jan 3, 2019

I believe this is implemented in synapse, so it should be spec-pr-missing, not finished-final-comment-period

@richvdh richvdh removed this from Done (this list will be incomplete) in August 2018 r0 Jan 3, 2019

@anoadragon453

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

anoadragon453 commented Jan 3, 2019

Good point, those old labels will confuse things. I do need to get the bot to switch to our custom labels still.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment