XSF Discussion - 2020-02-12


  1. Ge0rG

    jubalh: there was also a heated debate, with some people claiming that your approach is the most sensible one

  2. Ge0rG

    those people lost

  3. pep.

    poezio still does it that way fwiw, it's on the TODO(tm) to change it

  4. Ge0rG

    jubalh: so essentially, you need to store the first message id and the last correction's message id and match on either

  5. Holger

    Welcome to XMPP!

  6. Holger

    The obvious solution would be to introduce another ID.

  7. pep.

    Holger, I escape issues by not sending more than one correction to a message :-°

  8. Holger

    :-)

  9. Holger

    As an MCabber user, I appreciate that anyway.

  10. pep.

    hehe

  11. Ge0rG

    Info> Plugin progress loaded

  12. jonas’

    that’s akin to "ICMB armed"

  13. jonas’

    that’s akin to "ICBM armed"

  14. pep.

    I don't especially dislike corrections. I do dislike the social crap around it though (and around other features that fondamentally disrupt the normal flow of discussion)

  15. jonas’

    I get the impression most of the things you dislike are about the social crap around it ;)

  16. pep.

    Probably

  17. Ge0rG

    https://op-co.de/tmp/progress.mp4

  18. Holger

    XMPP would be awesome if people wouldn't abuse it for communication.

  19. pep.

    Holger, yeah

  20. pep.

    Well.. not exactly

  21. Ge0rG

    > XMPP would be awesome if people wouldn't ~ab~ use it ~for communication~.

  22. pep.

    I'm still gonna have to fight people on how to use other solutions..

  23. Daniel

    I just store all ids

  24. Daniel

    And if any match I apply the correction

  25. Daniel

    Yolo message correction

  26. Ge0rG

    Daniel: that only works if you also store all versions of the message (which is a good idea to do anyway, but not always feasible)

  27. Daniel

    Yeah I'll keep that in mind for the 2023 rewrite

  28. pep.

    I'm still curious to know if <body/> is the only thing ever that can be corrected

  29. pep.

    Because that's not how I read the thing

  30. Ge0rG

    pep.: anything can be corrected

  31. pep.

    Right so I need to keep the entire message

  32. Ge0rG

    pep.: it depend

  33. Ge0rG

    pep.: it depends

  34. pep.

    "The receiving client then treats the newly received payloads as completely replacing all payloads of the original message."

  35. pep.

    (which also makes it work btw with e2ee)

  36. Ge0rG

    pep.: yes

  37. Ge0rG

    pep.: if you only store the body, you can replace the body with whatever you extract from the correction

  38. pep.

    Ge0rG, "I sent you an OMEMO encrypted message but your client doesn’t seem to support that. Find more information on https://conversations.im/omemo"

  39. Daniel

    So if you are correcting a 184 you have to remove one checkmark and apply it somewhere else

  40. Ge0rG

    Daniel: yeah

  41. Ge0rG

    except, if somebody LMCs a 0184, you are allowed to do horrible things to them

  42. pep.

    Send them a LMC of 0184 in return?

  43. Daniel

    I just correct the same 333 display marker over and over. That's how I move it down

  44. jubalh

    Daniel: yes I guessed that Conversations does something different. Because my tests with Conversations worked even before I read that detail.

  45. pep.

    Daniel, jk? (just to make sure)

  46. Daniel

    jubalh: yes Conversations did the old thing until fairly Recently. And I want to be compatible with myself

  47. Daniel

    pep.: yes

  48. Daniel

    But that'd be funny. Because that's how you could also move it up

  49. Daniel

    And unread things

  50. Ge0rG

    Daniel: that's an awesome idea. That way, mamfc will only give you the latest Marker!

  51. pep.

    interesting

  52. pep.

    Daniel, actually I like that :x

  53. pep.

    Not especially the LMC hack, but the possibility to move it up again

  54. pep.

    "Wait no I wasn't done read here actually"

  55. pep.

    (Of course I still don't want to send that to the recipient, only to myself, but most people probably don't care :))

  56. pep.

    Maybe the new Inbox answers this

  57. pep.

    or not

  58. jubalh

    Daniel: whats the old thing?

  59. Daniel

    Using the last ID

  60. Daniel

    Not the original id

  61. jubalh

    ah

  62. jubalh

    Well. I would have much preferred that way

  63. jubalh

    Still don't see an advantage of the "new way"

  64. pep.

    I don't either

  65. Daniel

    Well think of it as fastening

  66. Daniel

    You need to store all the corrections alongside the original

  67. jubalh

    So far I store only the message/last correction

  68. pep.

    So it's technically possible to remove a correction right? Or would be, with fastening

  69. Daniel

    On the server side I mean

  70. Ge0rG ,oO( https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-April/036023.html )

  71. jonas’

    also, I’m getting better at catching up with deferrals

  72. Ge0rG

    is it me or is the static content on xmpp.net b0rked?

  73. Ge0rG

    I'm getting 502

  74. jonas’

    the entire thing seems to be overloaded at the moment

  75. jonas’

    it sends 502 when that happens

  76. jonas’

    so maybe it just struck you for the static contentw hile your non-static request went through

  77. MattJ

    ugh, the disk was full earlier, maybe some cache got messed up

  78. !XSF_Martin

    > ugh, the disk was full earlier, maybe some cache got messed up No more xeps! Save storage!

  79. !XSF_Martin

    Ah, net, not org

  80. jonas’

    same disk tho, afaik

  81. MattJ

    Yes

  82. Kev

    And, indeed, it was xmpp.net('s backups) that caused the full disk.