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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

MSC3442: move the prev_content key to unsigned #3442

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 24, 2021
Merged

MSC3442: move the prev_content key to unsigned #3442

merged 1 commit into from Oct 24, 2021

Conversation

richvdh
Copy link
Member

@richvdh richvdh commented Oct 14, 2021 •
edited

@deepbluev7
Copy link
Contributor

Pretty much every client SDK I worked with has a WTF like this because of this behaviour: https://gitlab.com/famedly/company/frontend/famedlysdk/-/blob/864151ec838690452a38879019ca2170c64b24cc/lib/src/event.dart#L92

So yeah, I think this is a very reasonable change and would make the spec match reality a lot more!

KitsuneRal
KitsuneRal approved these changes Oct 14, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@KitsuneRal KitsuneRal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Please.

proposals/3442-move-prev-content.md
`redacted_because` and `transaction_id`.

This will affect:
* Events returned by the Client-Server API.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Except /notifications and /sync since events returned by those are already in line with the new layout, correct?

Copy link
Member Author

@richvdh richvdh Oct 14, 2021 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As far as the spec is concerned, it will change the behaviour of /sync, and leave the behaviour of /notifications as-is.

As far as Synapse is concerned, it won't change anything at all, because it already puts prev_content under unsigned (usually in addition to the top level).

I'm not really sure that anything I could add here would make the situation any clearer.

@turt2live turt2live added client-server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal proposal-in-review labels Oct 14, 2021
@turt2live turt2live added this to Needs idea feedback / initial review in Spec Core Team Backlog via automation Oct 14, 2021
@turt2live turt2live self-requested a review October 14, 2021 15:11
turt2live
turt2live approved these changes Oct 14, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems sensible. The mention of how backwards compatibly works is also appreciated, for the servers which want to avoid breaking things.

@richvdh
Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented Oct 15, 2021

I don't mean to rush this, but on the other hand, I don't think there's much contentious here.

@mscbot fcp merge

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Oct 15, 2021 •
edited by dbkr

Team member @richvdh has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people:

Once at least 75% of reviewers approve (and there are no outstanding concerns), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for information about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@mscbot mscbot added disposition-merge proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. and removed proposal-in-review labels Oct 15, 2021
@richvdh richvdh moved this from Needs idea feedback / initial review to Ready for FCP ticks in Spec Core Team Backlog Oct 15, 2021
@richvdh
Copy link
Member Author

richvdh commented Oct 15, 2021 •
edited

@turt2live I'm going to remove the needs-implementation label, because I think it's already implemented. As noted in the MSC, Dendrite and Synapse already follow the proposal more than they do the spec. Matrix-js-sdk doesn't care. Basically, I'm not actually expecting any immediate implementation changes as a result of this MSC.

@richvdh richvdh removed the needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. label Oct 15, 2021
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Oct 19, 2021

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

@mscbot mscbot added final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. labels Oct 19, 2021
@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 moved this from Ready for FCP ticks to In FCP in Spec Core Team Backlog Oct 22, 2021
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Oct 24, 2021

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

@mscbot mscbot added finished-final-comment-period and removed disposition-merge final-comment-period This MSC has entered a final comment period in interest to approval, postpone, or delete in 5 days. labels Oct 24, 2021
@turt2live turt2live merged commit d42fce3 into main Oct 24, 2021
@turt2live turt2live moved this from In FCP to Done to some definition in Spec Core Team Backlog Oct 24, 2021
@turt2live turt2live added the spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec label Oct 24, 2021
@richvdh richvdh mentioned this pull request Nov 23, 2021
Merged
@turt2live turt2live added spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review and removed spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec labels Nov 25, 2021
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

This merged 27 days ago 🎉

@turt2live turt2live added merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! and removed spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review labels Dec 29, 2021
@richvdh richvdh deleted the rav/proposal/move_prev_content branch February 1, 2022 15:13
@slog198

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign in to view
@S7evinK S7evinK mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2023
Open
16 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@turt2live turt2live turt2live approved these changes

@KitsuneRal KitsuneRal KitsuneRal approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
client-server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
Spec Core Team Backlog
  
Done to some definition
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

prev_content is returned at the top-level by most of the CS API
6 participants
@richvdh @deepbluev7 @mscbot @turt2live @slog198 @KitsuneRal