feat: Support MSC4380 invite blocking #1875
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
Abandoned
Blocked
Bug
Changelog
Added
Changelog
Missing
Changelog
None
Cherry-picking
Database
Dependencies
Dependencies/Renovate
Difficulty
Easy
Difficulty
Hard
Difficulty
Medium
Documentation
Enhancement
Good first issue
Help wanted
Inherited
Matrix/Administration
Matrix/Appservices
Matrix/Auth
Matrix/Client
Matrix/Core
Matrix/E2EE
Matrix/Federation
Matrix/Hydra
Matrix/MSC
Matrix/Media
Matrix/T&S
Merge
Merge/Manual
Merge/Squash
Meta
Meta/CI
Meta/Packaging
Priority
Blocking
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Security
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Invalid
Status
Needs Investigation
Support
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
continuwuation/continuwuity!1875
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "nex/feat/msc4380"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Also fixes the silently dropped support for MSC4155, by checking for both!
This pull request...
Pull request checklist:
mainbranch, and the branch is named something other thanmain.myself, if applicable. This includes ensuring code compiles.
@ -77,6 +97,7 @@ impl InvitePermissionConfigEventContent {) -> Self {Self {enabled,default_action: None,Should this also be checked in the
server_filter_levelfunction?A quick "find references" showed
server_filter_levelis only used in tests and called byuser_filter_level, so it'd be a redundant check as far as I can tellIt might not always be, though
@ -92,3 +120,3 @@#[allow(clippy::if_same_then_else)]pub fn user_filter_level(&self, user: &UserId) -> FilterLevel {if !self.enabled {if self.are_all_blocked() {Should this be checked before
enabled?enabledshould have no bearing ondefault_actionstrictly speaking, sincedefault_action(m.invite_permission_config) is independent from the config schemed by msc4155, and since it's stable & in spec, I think it should take precedence.I'm technically cheating by combining the two almost unrelated proposals into one, but it means the filter level check logic doesn't need to be refactored elsewhere
Fair enough, I guess
all_all_blockedinserver_filter_level37d7a2e4f32a4b9f9323