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

MSC4117: Reinstating Events (Reversible Redactions) #4117

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

turt2live
Copy link
Member

Rendered

In line with matrix-org/matrix-spec#1700, the following disclosure applies:

I am Director of Standards Development at The Matrix.org Foundation C.I.C., Matrix Spec Core Team (SCT) member, employed by Element, and operate the t2bot.io service. This proposal is written and published under my Element hat as a member of the Trust & Safety team, allocated to the Foundation.

@turt2live turt2live changed the title MSC: Reinstating Events (Reversible Redactions) MSC4117: Reinstating Events (Reversible Redactions) Mar 4, 2024
@turt2live turt2live marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2024 21:51
@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal client-server Client-Server API kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels Mar 4, 2024
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Implementation requirements:

  • Recommended to wait until the MSC settles a bit before implementation begins.

Comment on lines +323 to +325
> **TODO**: This^ is a massive problem because Synapse populates `depth` on events still, which serves
> no purpose and is an unprotected field. To make this proposal work in all existing room versions,
> and ideally with older events too, this proposal needs to handle top-level fields too.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"unprotected field" I think is a lie. The spec clearly still protects it, and it's marked as required on the PDU. How the field is used is unclear to me though, and I think it might be safe to remove.

See https://spec.matrix.org/v1.9/rooms/v11/#redactions
See https://spec.matrix.org/v1.9/rooms/v11/#event-format-1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success 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
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant