-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 427
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implementation of XEP-0191 "Blocking command" #829
Conversation
In the
Otherwise, thanks a lot! |
{ok, L} -> | ||
{ok, L}; | ||
_ -> | ||
{error, e} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would catch some Variable instead of wildcard and return it in {error, Other}
tuple. I think bare e
is too little meaningful
5f6e11e
to
6974e86
Compare
@@ -0,0 +1,641 @@ | |||
%%============================================================================== |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This suite looks quite comprehensive. I don't see it run though.
- It's not present here: http://mongooseim-ct-results.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/branch/master/1619/1/big/index.html
- The coverage for mod_blocking is very low: https://coveralls.io/builds/6502277/source?filename=apps%2Fejabberd%2Fsrc%2Fmod_blocking.erl
- It's not present in
default.spec
How can we be sure the implementation works as expected? Do we need this suite at all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also I'd rather make most of the tests parallel, if this is possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Grrr, I forgot to add it to default.spec...
since the
In my opinion, If we'd like to allow users to use both modules maybe we should intruduce some tests with scenarios where client uses both privacy and blocking commands |
I think we shouldn't allow users to use both modules in the same session. And since |
Needs some testing, but can be done, no problem |
edit: nope, it is a problem, blocking commands don't work because privacy backend is not loaded. Can probably be worked around somehow, but is it worth it? Client has been warned... |
Right, I've forgotten about this. Let's leave it as is. |
This PR implements XEP-0191. Mostly as a separate module, though there were some minor changes to mod_privacy (so that it doesn't handle what it should not) and to ejabberd_c2s (since part of privacy logic is there, and there were bits and pieces of blocking commands implementation already).