Skip to content

Live testing of remote categories

ActivityPub Test Kategorie
63 10 2.1k
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    jdt@enigmatick.social could it be a mistake in the reply? For example, if the reply had all of the mentions removed I would think Mastodon would send out an object with empty to and cc.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    jsit@social.coop Ghost? NodeBB? Just to name a couple
  • Unicode in handles

    ActivityPub unicode activitypub
    15
    0 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    488 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    לאצי the usernames work fine locally (that is, on the site itself). It's when interoperating with other sites not running NodeBB where there are issues, it seems
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    532 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de
  • 0 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    285 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @evan@cosocial.ca hmm. I agree in the sense that any combination of recipients can be addressed, but the specific term "follower only" (to the exclusion of the public pseudo-user) isn't AP specific... could be wrong on that one. Either way I do think it's a good courtesy to assume equal or narrower visibility when replying to any post. The specific issue you outlined in OP seems to be a Mastodon bug for sure.
  • Updates to the world page

    ActivityPub Test Kategorie nodebbactivityp nodebb
    32
    2
    1 Stimmen
    32 Beiträge
    855 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @projectmoon@forum.agnos.is said in Updates to the world page: > > > Also, are there plans to merge the federation synchronization and new remote category following stuff together into one cohesive set of functionality? Yes... the remote category functionality supercedes the category sync functionality in some ways, but there is still a use case for it. Most likely I will need to develop proper support for cross-posting (at least locally), and that would work well with the remote category functionality, so that topics are cross-posted to the synchronized category, instead of moved.
  • Peertube....

    ActivityPub Test Kategorie peertube activitypub
    12
    1
    0 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    234 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @mario@hub.somaton.com thanks, I tested that payload and it successfully edited the post, so at least from the payload point of view there is no issue. Perhaps there is a problem with the http signature on update? Is that handled differently than a create?
  • Really loving #NodeBB so far.

    Uncategorized activitypub nodebb
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    76 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @deadsuperhero@social.wedistribute.org glad to hear it! I'm planning to continue working on improving our ActivityPub integration in 2025, hopefully with NLNet funding again