Updating Crypto API to v3

[Velin92]

element-hq/element-ios#7557

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 31.57895% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 35.54%. Comparing base (258bdb8) to head (5fcbf18).
⚠️ Report is 282 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
MatrixSDK/MXRestClient.m	31.57%	12 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #1789   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    35.54%   35.54%           
========================================
  Files          617      617           
  Lines        97208    97208           
  Branches     41489    41491    +2     
========================================
+ Hits         34548    34549    +1     
+ Misses       61768    61762    -6     
- Partials       892      897    +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[BillCarsonFr]

Looks like we should check /versions to know what version of the spec is supported by the homeserver then use the correct end point.
Some details here https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/old_master/proposals/2844-global-versioning.md ? not sure if safe to move all to v3

[BillCarsonFr]

It's not related to crypto?

[Velin92]

Looks like we should check /versions to know what version of the spec is supported by the homeserver then use the correct end point. Some details here https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/old_master/proposals/2844-global-versioning.md ? not sure if safe to move all to v3

Okay I understand, this PR was actually suggested by a member of the community, but maybe we should actually discard it and schedule a separate piece of work on this MSC that you linked.
I imagine that v3 is not backward compatible with r0 right?
What do you think? @manuroe

[nisbet-hubbard]

The PR was originally suggested because the Conduit homeserver implementation had moved to the v3 endpoints, rendering all crypto-related functionality unusable on the Element client: famedly/conduit#292.

FWIW, the changes I proposed were based on what FluffyChat did: famedly/fluffychat#986. Of course, it’d be perfectly reasonable for Element to go with a different solution.

Whatever solution ends up getting adopted, I hope it makes Element clients work well with Conduit soon.

[Velin92]

The PR was originally suggested because the Conduit homeserver implementation had moved to the v3 endpoints, rendering all crypto-related functionality unusable on the Element client: famedly/conduit#292.

FWIW, the changes I proposed were based on what FluffyChat did: famedly/fluffychat#986. Of course, it’d be perfectly reasonable for Element to go with a different solution.

Whatever solution ends up getting adopted, I hope it makes Element clients work well with Conduit soon.

Hello thanks again for your help, we probably need to decide first from a product perspective if it's okay to leave behind any server that would not support the v3 endpoints or if we should instead have a way to support all of them based on the version check.

[nisbet-hubbard]

we probably need to decide first from a product perspective if it's okay to leave behind any server that would not support the v3 endpoints or if we should instead have a way to support all of them based on the version check

That makes sense! I agree this is a good approach.