Skip to content

Support MSC3779: "Owned" state events #17332

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Support MSC3779: "Owned" state events #17332

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

AndrewFerr
Copy link
Member

@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr commented Jun 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

See: MSC3779

Pull Request Checklist

  • Pull request is based on the develop branch
  • Pull request includes a changelog file. The entry should:
    • Be a short description of your change which makes sense to users. "Fixed a bug that prevented receiving messages from other servers." instead of "Moved X method from EventStore to EventWorkerStore.".
    • Use markdown where necessary, mostly for code blocks.
    • End with either a period (.) or an exclamation mark (!).
    • Start with a capital letter.
    • Feel free to credit yourself, by adding a sentence "Contributed by @github_username." or "Contributed by [Your Name]." to the end of the entry.
  • Code style is correct
    (run the linters)

@AndrewFerr
Skip strict state_key rule when MSC3779 is enabled
9a9257c 
When the MSC is enabled, do not reject all events with a state_key
beginning with @ but not equal to the sender, as that overrides the
desired rule to allow the state key to have an optional suffix.
@AndrewFerr
Properly forbid setting other users' state
a949455
@AndrewFerr
Lint
c8aae98
@AndrewFerr
Use fewer "not"s
44e4a81
@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr marked this pull request as ready for review July 22, 2024 14:03
@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr requested a review from a team as a code owner July 22, 2024 14:03
@erikjohnston
Copy link
Member

Having read the MSC, I have serious reservations on it matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#3779 (comment). This doesn't necessarily block us from landing this as an experimental thing, but would block us from enabling it in non-test environments.

@erikjohnston
Copy link
Member

From discussions elsewhere: we're looking at removing the changes to the required power levels, which is the controversial bit of the MSC. Until then, I'm going to remove this from the review queue.

@erikjohnston erikjohnston removed the request for review from a team July 29, 2024 10:06
@fkwp
Copy link
Contributor

fkwp commented Aug 1, 2024

From discussions elsewhere: we're looking at removing the changes to the required power levels, which is the controversial bit of the MSC. Until then, I'm going to remove this from the review queue.

here we go #17513

@anoadragon453
Copy link
Member

@AndrewFerr should this PR be closed in favour of #17513?

@AndrewFerr
Copy link
Member Author

should this PR be closed in favour of #17513?

Sure. This is technically still a working implementation of an open MSC, but there's not much value in keeping this open alongside a competing PR & MSC.

@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr closed this Aug 12, 2024
@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr deleted the af/msc3779 branch May 21, 2025 13:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@AndrewFerr @erikjohnston @fkwp @anoadragon453