Skip to content

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

ActivityPub Test Kategorie
26 9 159
  • What drew you to ActivityPub?

    ActivityPub activitypub dotsocial blogs
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > Getting a critical mass of people to create yet another account was always a major obstacle. I see and have experienced this effect time and time again, and we're getting closer and closer to the point where the protocol implementations can abstract away the messy bits. Gaining critical mass among devs is the first step!
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    dfyx@social.helios42.de because followers and outbox collections can be faked.
  • 0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social I wasn't aware that there were sections pertaining to context. I'll have to review more closely.
  • 0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    177 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    feditips@social.growyourown.services ahaldorsen@tutoteket.no feel free to reach out if you have trouble setting up or administering NodeBB. We're on the fediverse, and happy to be here!
  • Pleroma Webfinger compatibility

    ActivityPub activitypub pleroma webfinger
    10
    0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    336 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Peertube....

    ActivityPub Test Kategorie peertube activitypub
    12
    1
    0 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    235 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?