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

MSC2631: Add default_payload to PusherData #2631

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

MSC2631: Add default_payload to PusherData #2631

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

ismailgulek
Copy link

@ismailgulek ismailgulek commented Jun 12, 2020 •
edited
Loading

@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec labels Jun 12, 2020
@ismailgulek ismailgulek changed the title MSC2631: Add fallback_content to PusherData MSC2631: Add fallback_content to PusherData Jun 12, 2020
@turt2live turt2live self-requested a review June 12, 2020 14:22
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jun 12, 2020

Having insisted that @ismailgulek created this MSC, I'm now having doubts if it is necessary.

The C-S spec says:

The exact format for sending APNS notifications is flexible and up to the client app and its' push gateway to agree on. As APNS requires that the sender has a private key owned by the app developer, each app must have its own push gateway.

so that sounds like this field doesn't need to be in the spec at all: it's an implementation-specific detail for sygnal and riot-ios to agree on.

It would be nice for sygnal to document its API so that other app developers can host their own sygnal and make use of its features, but I don't think it needs to be in the spec.

I'd love it if someone else on the spec team with more experience with push could weigh in on this though...

@ismailgulek ismailgulek marked this pull request as ready for review June 18, 2020 09:20
@ismailgulek ismailgulek changed the title MSC2631: Add fallback_content to PusherData MSC2631: Add default_payload to PusherData Jun 18, 2020
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jun 19, 2020

@ismailgulek: I've discussed this with @dbkr and he agrees with me-from-7-days-ago that me-from-9-days-ago was talking nonsense, and that there is no need for this field to be in the spec.

Sorry for wasting your time :/. Suggest you go ahead and close this PR if you're happy.

@richvdh richvdh mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2020
Merged
@ismailgulek
Copy link
Author

@ismailgulek: I've discussed this with @dbkr and he agrees with me-from-7-days-ago that me-from-9-days-ago was talking nonsense, and that there is no need for this field to be in the spec.

Sorry for wasting your time :/. Suggest you go ahead and close this PR if you're happy.

Closing this as decided to be not necessary.

@ismailgulek ismailgulek deleted the msc2631 branch June 23, 2020 13:47
@turt2live turt2live added the abandoned A proposal where the author/shepherd is not responsive label Jul 7, 2020
@Johennes Johennes mentioned this pull request Oct 11, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@turt2live turt2live Awaiting requested review from turt2live

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
abandoned A proposal where the author/shepherd is not responsive kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@ismailgulek @richvdh @turt2live