No known client ever used this. Currently among akkoma-fe, pleroma-fe,
Husky, Mangane and pl-fe only the latter acknowledes the existence of
the in_reply_to_conversation_id paramter in its API definitions,
but even pl-fe does never actually use the parameter anywhere.
Since the API parameter already was converted to DMs internally,
we do not need to make special considerations for already existing
old conversation-addressed posts. Since they share the context they
should also continue to show up in the intended thread anyway.
The pleroma.participants subkey mentioned in docs did already not exist
prior to this commit. Instead the accounts key doesn’t automatically update
and this affects conversations retrieved from the Mastodon API endpoint too
(which may be considered a pre-existing bug).
If desired clients can already avoid unintended participant additions
by using the explicit-addressing feature originally introduced in
https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/-/merge_requests/1239.
With the above-mentioned feature/bug of conversation participants
not updating automatically it can replace almost everything
conversation addressing was able to do. The sole exception being
creating new non-reply posts in the same context.
Neither conversation addressing nor explicit addressing
achieves robust, federated group chats though.
Resolves: https://akkoma.dev/AkkomaGang/akkoma/issues/812
This feature was both conceptually broken and through bitrotting
the implementation was also buggy with the handling of certain
list-post interactions just crashing.
Remote servers had no way to know who belongs to a list and thus
posts basically showed just up as weird DM threads with different
participants on each instance. And while on the local instance
addition and removal from a listed grated and revoked post
access retroactively, it never acted retroactively on remotes.
Notably our "activity_visibility" database function also didn’t
know about "list visibility" instead treating them as direct messages.
Furthermore no known client actualy allows creating such messages
and the lack of complaints about the accumulutaed bugs supports
the absence of any users.
Given this there seems no point in fixing the implementation.
To reduce complexity of visibility handling it will be dropped instead.
Note, a similar effect with less federation weirdness can already be achieved
client-side using the explicit-addressing feature originally introduced in
https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/-/merge_requests/1239.
Ref: https://akkoma.dev/AkkomaGang/akkoma/issues/812
- save object ids on pin, instead of activity ids
- pins federation
- removed pinned_activities field from the users table
- activityPub endpoint for user pins
- pulling remote users pins
Too many changes in OpenAPI spec to describe each one, but
basically it is tag fixes, bringing consitency to operation summaries
and fixing some incorrect information.
Favorites were paginating wrongly, because the pagination headers
where using the id of the id of the `Create` activity, while the
ordering was by the id of the `Like` activity. This isn't easy to
notice in most cases, as they usually have a similar order because
people tend to favorite posts as they come in. This commit adds a
way to give different pagination ids to the pagination helper, so
we can paginate correctly in cases like this.
