Skip to content

⚠️ We’re now entering the “extinguish” part of “Embrace, extend, extinguish”.

ActivityPub Test Kategorie
26 9 159
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    325 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > One weakness I have noticed in NodeBB's current federation is that posts which are in reply to a topic (e.g. a Lemmy comment) show up as individual threads until (or if) the root post of that topic shows up in the local NodeBB. No, Lemmy does not implement either strategy, they rely on 1b12 only. If NodeBB is receiving parts of a topic that don't resolve up to the root-level post that might be something we can fix. I'll try to take a look at it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    211 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I suppose you're right in a way. The context owner is not supposed to be set by someone other than the context owner. It's a fallback mechanism intended for better compatibility with Mastodon. When a group is addressed and it is one of the local NodeBB categories, it will assume control If it is another group that it knows about but isn't same origin to the author, then no category is assumed.
  • 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
    3 Beiträge
    91 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @mastodonmigration@mastodon.online while this is a known workaround, I don't think it's a tenable long-term solution. You can have "real decentralization" without the quirks, too.
  • ActivityPub 5.6.0 for WordPress just shipped!

    ActivityPub Test Kategorie wordpress activitypub
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    71 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @obenland@mastodon.social wonderful, good work!
  • Live testing of remote categories

    ActivityPub Test Kategorie activitypub nodebbactivityp
    63
    2
    0 Stimmen
    63 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @pfefferle@mastodon.social just wanted to poke you about this issue again. The latest updates to NodeBB now do a webfinger backcheck to ensure that the actor has a valid webfinger entry for their purported handle. If it does not, then the user is not properly created. Mastodon also does this. This check is probably for security as well as for preventing handle collisions. The multilingual plugin in conjunction with the ActivityPub plugin creates users that share the same handle, and that causes issues with federated content. For example, this article by @jonvt@vivaldi.com will load up just fine in Mastodon, but this japanese article by @akira@vivaldi.com will not, because that second article's attributedTo is https://vivaldi.com/ja/?author=176, which fails that check (the author's ID is actually https://vivaldi.com?author=176 as per the handle backcheck) cc @AltCode
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Reconciling ActivityPub Deletes with NodeBB deletion

    ActivityPub Test Kategorie activitypub
    16
    0 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    290 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Angus, while I haven't made the appropriate changes to NodeBB's implementation yet, I did draft an FEP including the changes we discussed. https://github.com/julianlam/feps/blob/main/fep/15c5/fep-15c5.md It is not PR'd upstream yet, but I will do so in the coming days unless there are some concerns.