XSF Discussion - 2018-07-07

well it’s a good thing that we have standards https://github.com/siacs/Conversations/blob/master/src/main/java/eu/siacs/conversations/generator/IqGenerator.java#L447-L449

Do we?

For this, I mean

No

Last time we couldn't agree on a name

And decided not to do it at all

Heh

Well that's silly for something that's clearly being used widely already

:(

Also, just this week I added a new config option to control whether members in a members-only room are allowed to invite others (who get automatically added as members)

That should probably also be standardized

good thing that it’s easy to add stuff to the MUC config

https://hg.prosody.im/trunk/rev/92f0876b9230#l1.28 FWIW

MattJ, are you also putting this in disco#info

Ah, I meant to check that

as a client i need to know whether i should render that invite button

My guess is probably not right now

I'll look at that now

Yeah, we're not, 1-line fix

also could you put the roomconfig_name in there?

while you are at it

i made this point recently on the mailinglist or here in the chat that most servers prefil the identity name with the localpart; thus preventing me from checking if the name is currently empty

looking at roomconfig_name would allow me to check that

Ok, shall do

daniel, oh, looks like that's not standard either?

MattJ, you can add any roomconfig_name into the disco#info

daniel, says?

took me a second to figure that out myself

I thought so too at first

But look closely, and roomconfig != roominfo

roominfo is a separate registry

That said, roomconfig_name isn't there either

yes. but you can still add roomconfig things to the disco#info form. give me a second the find that

> he muc#roomconfig FORM_TYPE can be included in the extended service discovery fields (as shown above for the "muc#roomconfig_changesubject" field).

Hmm

its roomconfig_roomname sorry

typed that from memory

i had already prepared a PR that registeres roominfo_roomname when i found that

Ahh, ok, thanks

So strange

there are quite a few roomconfig things that should be put in the disco#info as well. like allowpm and allowinvites

how is your allow_invites different from that by the way?

I considered that (and may be open to persuasion)

But I don't think that just because you can send an invite automatically indicates that you can invite non-members

mhhh

In fact the XEP actually states that this should be restricted to admins

"If the room is members-only, the service MAY also add the invitee to the member list. (Note: Invitation privileges in members-only rooms SHOULD be restricted to room admins; if a member without privileges to edit the member list attempts to invite another user, the service SHOULD return a <forbidden/> error to the occupant; for details, see the Modifying the Member List section of this document.)"

mhhh fair enough

Prosody doesn't actually implement allowinvites

It's pretty useless given the existence of direct invitations

daniel, done in trunk, looks like this: https://prosody.im/pastebin/029789ae-3642-47da-be6e-957eeec0831b

Thanks

There could be good story about the reason that ejabberd community and saas use different strings for MUC/MAM. Or is it just "don't care"?

yeah, I’d like to hear that story too

Holger, ^ maybe you can shed some light into this?

SaaS has an older code base, that's all.

I think it was changed to match the suggestion from some PR or something.

Working with ejabberd SaaS is a deja vu for a lot of the small annoying things that got fixed in ejabberd a while ago

Yes they're careful merging stuff to avoid breakage, which also avoids fixes. SaaS is a bit like Debian.