Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Technical Discussion
  3. Topic removal from a category/community

Topic removal from a category/community

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Technical Discussion
piefed
24 Indlæg 5 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • silverpill@mitra.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
    silverpill@mitra.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
    silverpill@mitra.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #21

    @julian @rimu No, when one object is embedded in another, it doesn't change its behavior. A Delete activity wrapped in Announce doesn't mean something else, it exists as an independent object that can be fetched by its id.

    The invalid Delete activity worked for Lemmy only because they didn't care about federation with non-forum software. But it can't work in the multi-app network without ugly hacks like checking remote server's NodeInfo.

    julian@activitypub.spaceJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • silverpill@mitra.socialS silverpill@mitra.social

      @julian @rimu No, when one object is embedded in another, it doesn't change its behavior. A Delete activity wrapped in Announce doesn't mean something else, it exists as an independent object that can be fetched by its id.

      The invalid Delete activity worked for Lemmy only because they didn't care about federation with non-forum software. But it can't work in the multi-app network without ugly hacks like checking remote server's NodeInfo.

      julian@activitypub.spaceJ This user is from outside of this forum
      julian@activitypub.spaceJ This user is from outside of this forum
      julian@activitypub.space
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #22

      Perhaps resolvable contexts can be a solution for this then.

      I have been implementing topic deletion logic in NodeBB, and while I can send out Announce(Delete(Object)) where Object is the root-level post, it occasionally would send out Deletes where the sender is not the owner of the object. This is the 1b12-speaking logic.

      In 7888-speaking logic, Object would be the local context collection. A receiver would be able to resolve the context URL to the appropriate local representation and delete it as needed. This would also satisfy the “sender needs to own the object” constraint.

      silverpill@mitra.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • julian@activitypub.spaceJ julian@activitypub.space

        Perhaps resolvable contexts can be a solution for this then.

        I have been implementing topic deletion logic in NodeBB, and while I can send out Announce(Delete(Object)) where Object is the root-level post, it occasionally would send out Deletes where the sender is not the owner of the object. This is the 1b12-speaking logic.

        In 7888-speaking logic, Object would be the local context collection. A receiver would be able to resolve the context URL to the appropriate local representation and delete it as needed. This would also satisfy the “sender needs to own the object” constraint.

        silverpill@mitra.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
        silverpill@mitra.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
        silverpill@mitra.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #23

        @julian

        Delete(Context)? This is very unusual because other collections are not created or deleted, they are server-generated views.

        I assume this problem arises when you create a topic for a remote post? Perhaps deletion of such topics shouldn't be federated?

        Or you can generate

        Announce(Remove(object: root, target: Context))
        

        It would be valid from the authorization point of view.

        julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • silverpill@mitra.socialS silverpill@mitra.social

          @julian

          Delete(Context)? This is very unusual because other collections are not created or deleted, they are server-generated views.

          I assume this problem arises when you create a topic for a remote post? Perhaps deletion of such topics shouldn't be federated?

          Or you can generate

          Announce(Remove(object: root, target: Context))
          

          It would be valid from the authorization point of view.

          julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
          julian@community.nodebb.orgJ This user is from outside of this forum
          julian@community.nodebb.org
          wrote sidst redigeret af julian@community.nodebb.org
          #24

          Well, the whole idea behind them being resolvable is so that when they are acted upon (by the context owner), they can be queried.

          For example if I receive a Delete(Context), I’ll resolve it to find the root level post, and from there find my local representation, and delete it, assuming the actor was allowed to delete it.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          Svar
          • Svar som emne
          Login for at svare
          • Ældste til nyeste
          • Nyeste til ældste
          • Most Votes


          • Log ind

          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

          • Login or register to search.
          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
          Graciously hosted by data.coop
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Hjem
          • Seneste
          • Etiketter
          • Populære
          • Verden
          • Bruger
          • Grupper