-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
fix #154 (and fix #159 because that's a duplicate) #165
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.
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
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds a new Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
❌ Coverage: 90.77% → 90.76% (-0.01%) |
✅ Coverage: 90.77% → 90.78% (+0.01%) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@crates/mdk-core/CHANGELOG.md`:
- Line 28: Update the CHANGELOG entry for the "**`PreviouslyFailed` Result
Variant**" so the PR link at the end references `#165` instead of `#160`; locate the
line containing "MessageProcessingResult::PreviouslyFailed" and replace the PR
number in the parenthetical link from "(`#160`...)" to "(`#165`...)" so the entry
ends with the correct PR reference.
In `@crates/mdk-uniffi/CHANGELOG.md`:
- Line 44: Update the CHANGELOG entry for the "PreviouslyFailed Result Variant"
(the line mentioning ProcessMessageResult.PreviouslyFailed / "PreviouslyFailed
Result Variant") to reference PR `#165` instead of `#160`, and verify whether the
"fixes [`#153`]" issue reference is correct for this crate—if not, replace it with
the correct issue number; ensure the PR link and issue references in that single
entry reflect the PR that actually modified this crate.
✅ Coverage: 90.77% → 90.78% (+0.01%) |
jgmontoya
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
mubarakcoded
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
This PR fixes issues #154 and #159 by making re-arrived previously failed MLS messages non-crashing: when a previously failed or epoch-invalidated message is seen again and its MLS group ID cannot be extracted, processing now returns a graceful PreviouslyFailed result instead of producing an error/panic. It also preserves the prior behavior of returning Unprocessable when the group ID can be extracted, and updates tests and UniFFI bindings to expose the new result variant.
What changed:
Security impact:
Protocol changes:
API surface:
Testing: