feat: Support MSC4380 invite blocking #1875

Merged
nex merged 5 commits from nex/feat/msc4380 into main 2026-06-24 19:13:41 +00:00
Owner

Also fixes the silently dropped support for MSC4155, by checking for both!

This pull request...

Pull request checklist:

  • This pull request targets the main branch, and the branch is named something other than
    main.
  • I have written an appropriate pull request title and my description is clear.
  • I understand I am responsible for the contents of this pull request.
  • I have followed the contributing guidelines:
Also fixes the silently dropped support for MSC4155, by checking for both! <!-- In order to help reviewers know what your pull request does at a glance, you should ensure that 1. Your PR title is a short, single sentence describing what you changed 2. You have described in more detail what you have changed, why you have changed it, what the intended effect is, and why you think this will be beneficial to the project. If you have made any potentially strange/questionable design choices, but didn't feel they'd benefit from code comments, please don't mention them here - after opening your pull request, go to "files changed", and click on the "+" symbol in the line number gutter, and attach comments to the lines that you think would benefit from some clarification. --> This pull request... <!-- Example: This pull request allows us to warp through time and space ten times faster than before by double-inverting the warp drive with hyperheated jump fluid, both making the drive faster and more efficient. This resolves the common issue where we have to wait more than 10 milliseconds to engage, use, and disengage the warp drive when travelling between galaxies. --> <!-- Closes: #... --> <!-- Fixes: #... --> <!-- Uncomment the above line(s) if your pull request fixes an issue or closes another pull request by superseding it. Replace `#...` with the issue/pr number, such as `#123`. --> **Pull request checklist:** <!-- You need to complete these before your PR can be considered. If you aren't sure about some, feel free to ask for clarification in #dev:continuwuity.org. --> - [x] This pull request targets the `main` branch, and the branch is named something other than `main`. - [x] I have written an appropriate pull request title and my description is clear. - [x] I understand I am responsible for the contents of this pull request. - I have followed the [contributing guidelines][c1]: - [x] My contribution follows the [code style][c2], if applicable. - [x] I ran [pre-commit checks][c1pc] before opening/drafting this pull request. - [ ] I have [tested my contribution][c1t] (or proof-read it for documentation-only changes) myself, if applicable. This includes ensuring code compiles. - [x] My commit messages follow the [commit message format][c1cm] and are descriptive. <!-- Notes on these requirements: - While not required, we encourage you to sign your commits with GPG or SSH to attest the authenticity of your changes. - While we allow LLM-assisted contributions, we do not appreciate contributions that are low quality, which is typical of machine-generated contributions that have not had a lot of love and care from a human. Please do not open a PR if all you have done is asked ChatGPT to tidy up the codebase with a +-100,000 diff. - In the case of code style violations, reviewers may leave review comments/change requests indicating what the ideal change would look like. For example, a reviewer may suggest you lower a log level, or use `match` instead of `if/else` etc. - In the case of code style violations, pre-commit check failures, minor things like typos/spelling errors, and in some cases commit format violations, reviewers may modify your branch directly, typically by making changes and adding a commit. Particularly in the latter case, a reviewer may rebase your commits to squash "spammy" ones (like "fix", "fix", "actually fix"), and reword commit messages that don't satisfy the format. - Pull requests MUST pass the `Checks` CI workflows to be capable of being merged. This can only be bypassed in exceptional circumstances. If your CI flakes, let us know in matrix:r/dev:continuwuity.org. - Pull requests have to be based on the latest `main` commit before being merged. If the main branch changes while you're making your changes, you should make sure you rebase on main before opening a PR. Your branch will be rebased on main before it is merged if it has fallen behind. - We typically only do fast-forward merges, so your entire commit log will be included. Once in main, it's difficult to get out cleanly, so put on your best dress, smile for the cameras! --> [c1]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md [c2]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/docs/development/code_style.mdx [c1pc]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#pre-commit-checks [c1t]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#running-tests-locally [c1cm]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-messages
feat: Support MSC4380 invite blocking
Some checks failed
Auto Labeler / Apply labels based on changed files (pull_request_target) Successful in 4s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m1s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m2s
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Failing after 11s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been cancelled
b6baf66399
fix: Re-add silently dropped support for MSC4155
chore(1875): Add changelogs
Some checks failed
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m0s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 5s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m9s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been cancelled
b009ffd31c
nex requested review from ginger 2026-06-24 18:11:11 +00:00
chore(1875): Remove extra changelog entry
All checks were successful
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 59s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 7s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 2m3s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Successful in 10m1s
f19f5c71a5
@ -77,6 +97,7 @@ impl InvitePermissionConfigEventContent {
) -> Self {
Self {
enabled,
default_action: None,
Owner

Should this also be checked in the server_filter_level function?

Should this also be checked in the `server_filter_level` function?
Author
Owner

A quick "find references" showed server_filter_level is only used in tests and called by user_filter_level, so it'd be a redundant check as far as I can tell

A quick "find references" showed `server_filter_level` is only used in tests and called by `user_filter_level`, so it'd be a redundant check as far as I can tell
Owner

It might not always be, though

It might not always be, though
ginger marked this conversation as resolved
@ -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() {
Owner

Should this be checked before enabled?

Should this be checked before `enabled`?
Author
Owner

enabled should have no bearing on default_action strictly speaking, since default_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

`enabled` should have no bearing on `default_action` strictly speaking, since `default_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
Owner

Fair enough, I guess

Fair enough, I guess
ginger marked this conversation as resolved
fix: Check all_all_blocked in server_filter_level
Some checks failed
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 7s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m10s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m12s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been cancelled
37d7a2e4f3
ginger approved these changes 2026-06-24 19:08:07 +00:00
nex force-pushed nex/feat/msc4380 from 37d7a2e4f3
Some checks failed
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 7s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m10s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m12s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been cancelled
to 2a4b9f9323
Some checks failed
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m0s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 5s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (push) Successful in 58s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (push) Successful in 5s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 2m14s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (push) Successful in 2m9s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Successful in 8m17s
Release Docker Image / Build linux-amd64 (release) (push) Successful in 13m13s
Release Docker Image / Build linux-arm64 (max-perf) (push) Has been skipped
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (push) Successful in 12m34s
Release Docker Image / Build linux-arm64 (release) (push) Successful in 11m7s
Release Docker Image / Create Multi-arch Release Manifest (push) Failing after 16s
Release Docker Image / Build linux-amd64 (max-perf) (push) Successful in 28m8s
Release Docker Image / Create Max-Perf Manifest (push) Has been skipped
Release Docker Image / Mirror Images (push) Has been skipped
Release Docker Image / Release Binaries (push) Has been skipped
2026-06-24 19:13:22 +00:00
Compare
nex merged commit 2a4b9f9323 into main 2026-06-24 19:13:41 +00:00
nex deleted branch nex/feat/msc4380 2026-06-24 19:13:41 +00:00
ginger added this to the 26.6.0 milestone 2026-07-04 15:57:29 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
continuwuation/continuwuity!1875
No description provided.