Improve space (and room!) upgrades #907
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
Bug
Cherry-picking
Database
Dependencies
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/Federation
Matrix/MSC
Matrix/Media
Meta
Meta/Packaging
Priority
Blocking
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Security
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Invalid
Status
Needs Investigation
Wont fix
old/ci/cd
old/rust
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: continuwuation/continuwuity#907
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "nex/feat/space-upgrades"
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?
This PR does the following:
""
) is clonedstate_accessor
service to iterate over all of the state keys for a given event typeThis is primarily in preparation for room v12, where some people may desire to upgrade their spaces.
It is important to note that some clients, such as Element Web and possibly Cinny, perform these new steps client-side as well. Given we create & send the events first, this just results in overlapping behaviour, rather than a functional issue, and is safe to ignore.
6691b7672b
607caddacf
toc639228f4d
I think it's pretty much good, although I wonder if in future it's worth breaking this out into a separate function outside of the API crate.
@ -297,0 +338,4 @@
&body.room_id
);
// First, drop the space's child event
let state_lock = services.rooms.state.mutex.lock(space_id).await;
This lock should probably be an explicit scope.
conduwuit::utils::with_lock::WithLock
thenmutex.with_lock(|state_lock| {
, instead of using drop - from the code style guide.(resolved with no changes because the desired system isn't compatible with the mutex in question)
@ -297,0 +367,4 @@
PduBuilder {
event_type: StateEventType::SpaceChild.into(),
content: to_raw_value(&SpaceChildEventContent {
via: vec![sender_user.server_name().to_owned()],
Shouldn't via be multiple servers? Although IG we would be the only server in the room, so not much we can do other than update later.
MSC explicitly states only the sender server should be included