Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.

Don't error on unknown receipt types #12670

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 9, 2022
Merged

Don't error on unknown receipt types #12670

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4788d4e
Don't error on unknown receipt types
erikjohnston May 9, 2022
e05da07
Newsfile
erikjohnston May 9, 2022
be6bc36
Lint
erikjohnston May 9, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions changelog.d/12670.feature
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
Implement [changes](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2285/commits/4a77139249c2e830aec3c7d6bd5501a514d1cc27) to [MSC2285 (hidden read receipts)](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2285). Contributed by @SimonBrandner.
26 changes: 15 additions & 11 deletions synapse/rest/client/read_marker.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -50,17 +50,21 @@ async def on_POST(

body = parse_json_object_from_request(request)

valid_receipt_types = {ReceiptTypes.READ, ReceiptTypes.FULLY_READ}
if self.config.experimental.msc2285_enabled:
DMRobertson marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
valid_receipt_types.add(ReceiptTypes.READ_PRIVATE)

if set(body.keys()) > valid_receipt_types:
raise SynapseError(
400,
"Receipt type must be 'm.read', 'org.matrix.msc2285.read.private' or 'm.fully_read'"
if self.config.experimental.msc2285_enabled
else "Receipt type must be 'm.read' or 'm.fully_read'",
)
valid_receipt_types = {
ReceiptTypes.READ,
ReceiptTypes.FULLY_READ,
ReceiptTypes.READ_PRIVATE,
}
Comment on lines +52 to +56
Copy link
Member

@clokep clokep May 9, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you still want to consider READ_PRIVATE valid only if the flag is on?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See #12670 (comment). My understanding from what Erik said was that this only governs the warning we show, not the enforcement logic later(?)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but would still be a confusing/incorrect warning.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Although I guess the alternative is log spam...so maybe this is best.


unrecognized_types = set(body.keys()) - valid_receipt_types
if unrecognized_types:
# It's fine if there are unrecognized receipt types, but let's log
# it to help debug clients that have typoed the receipt type.
#
# We specifically *don't* error here, as a) it stops us processing
# the valid receipts, and b) we need to be extensible on receipt
# types.
logger.info("Ignoring unrecognized receipt types: %s", unrecognized_types)

read_event_id = body.get(ReceiptTypes.READ, None)
if read_event_id:
Expand Down