Implementing postingRestrictedToMods
Technical Discussion
6
Posts
3
Posters
10
Views
-
Hey pfefferle@mastodon.social nutomic@lemmy.ml, I'm looking to integrate support for
postingRestrictedToModsI see some discussion here:
It's a little specific, but even so, I'm happy to add it, since it solves some issues with cross-community content creation permission.
Is there a JSON-LD context I can add, since I am assuming that
postingRestrictedToModsis not standard? -
undefined nodebb@fosstodon.org shared this topic on
-
-
pfefferle@mastodon.social how has nobody complained about that yet? š
-
@julian š
-
Its part of the part of the Lemmy context so you could include that.
Btw I didnt notice your post before because Lemmy doesnt support mention notifications in that context yet (it will be in 1.0).
-
Its part of the part of the Lemmy context so you could include that.
Btw I didnt notice your post before because Lemmy doesnt support mention notifications in that context yet (it will be in 1.0).
Thanks! I will do just that... mostly since I don't feel like hosting my own context just for this one property.
This feature is now implemented and should ship with the next minor version of NodeBB ā v4.8.0.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
I fail to see what the fundamental difference is. If you are unsure about the target with Delete/Object, you can also resolve the context of Object to figure that out. Anyway the instance where the Group is hosted is always the authority, so the state there is the correct one.
Actually I would rather think of this from a different perspective, namely from the perspective of the mod who clicks the remove button. That would happen when a post is offtopic or violates the rules, and then the intent clearly is to remove all replies as they are not useful. It wouldnt make sense to leave up a single reply two levels deep just because it wasnt included in the context for some reason.
-
I'm sure that approach works as well. This would have been worth discussing 4 or 5 years ago when I was just implementing federation in Lemmy for the first time. By now FEP-1b12 is already an established standard which is used by various platforms, and it would be completely unfeasible to replace it with something else.
-
I do agree that with_replies, or similar, would be the easiest approach, but I don't think it is the most specific.
The bool suggests that all replies to a given object are deleted. However, you do not know whether your idea of what the reply tree is matches that of the originating server (which replies are included, etc.?)
Remove(Context), on the other hand does imply both that the container is deleted, and all of its replies, which are dereferenceable by resolving the context directly. It also has the benefit of being able to provide a pointer to where it was removed from, which is useful.
So to me it's not just a matter of preference, but that there are additional benefits to Remove
I will of course concede that it is more work to deliver Remove.
cc thisismissem
-
@julian @jdp23 well, a Delete can be operated on an array of objects. :D
Send one with all the objects that are affected from the local instance (and probably you must keep in mind that not all replies might be).
-
thisismissem seems I misspoke, as Nutomic's reply above clarifies: the tree stays but is effectively orphaned. Lemmy v1.0 will allow the reply tree to be accessed post-deletion.
The original query does still remain the same: what would be the best way forward to explicitly signal the deletion (or technically, the removal) of an entire reply tree?
-
mariusor@metalhead.club that works too!
-
Thanks! I will do just that... mostly since I don't feel like hosting my own context just for this one property.
This feature is now implemented and should ship with the next minor version of NodeBB ā v4.8.0.
-
@nutomic I realize this explanation probably skips a lot of information that's clear to me from my context, but I'll try to answer if anyone has any questions.
