i'm moving my stuff off GitHub because i'm sick of Microsoft's shit.
Technical Discussion
1
Posts
1
Posters
0
Views
-
i'm moving my stuff off GitHub because i'm sick of Microsoft's shit. today's task is
slurp.the official project home page has been https://catgirl.codes/slurp for a bit, but now that's also the package URL as far as Go is concerned. this will be a breaking change for anyone who depended on
slurpinternals, which i hope is nobody. there's some sort of package renaming directive you can use ingo.modif you did.the public Git repo and issue tracker are now on Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/vyr/slurp
if you can, please donate to Codeberg. i just did (again). they're a great option for open source devs like me who aren't SREs and don't want the overhead of self-hosting all that stuff, and running a service like that isn't free.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Hi Nutomic, thanks for joining the forum.
While I have you, I wanted to ask you about the removal of audience from Lemmy. I believe the rationale for it was that it was not used outside of Lemmy, but both Piefed (rimu@piefed.social) and NodeBB use it.
I still think the explicit use of the audience property is more helpful than not.
I discovered another use case for it, although it is a bit of an edge case. Last night a user from lemmy.ca posted to activitypub@community.nodebb.org. Here, there are no followers to that group actor, so it did not federate here. However, one of the relays this site subscribes to did Announce the topic, and when it arrived here, NodeBB could not accurately determine whether the topic/post _actually belonged to activitypub@community.nodebb.org.
Specifically, it is because sometimes users (on Mastodon or other sites) mention group actors but don't intend for the post to be made there. It is not a strong enough signal.
But audience being explicitly set does provide that strong signal. I've updated NodeBB's code to trust the group actor if located in audience.
-
i'm moving my stuff off GitHub because i'm sick of Microsoft's shit. today's task is slurp.
the official project home page has been https://catgirl.codes/slurp for a bit, but now that's also the package URL as far as Go is concerned. this will be a breaking change for anyone who depended on slurp internals, which i hope is nobody. there's some sort of package renaming directive you can use in go.mod if you did.
the public Git repo and issue tracker are now on Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/vyr/slurp
if you can, please donate to Codeberg. i just did (again). they're a great option for open source devs like me who aren't SREs and don't want the overhead of self-hosting all that stuff, and running a service like that isn't free.
-
silverpill@mitra.social I have been reflecting on the use of Remove/Move vs Update and I am thinking that Update isn't explicit enough.
If I am removing a topic from a category, I'd be sending an Update with the group actor removed from the audience property.
However recipients wouldn't know which audience was removed, merely the new state of that context's audience.
-
silverpill@mitra.social said in Moving topics/contexts between communities:
> I thought Lemmy devs decided to address community in to instead of audience. Any news on that front?You're right. I'm going to want to talk to nutomic@lemmy.ml about that one. I think it was a mistake to remove setting that property explicitly.
As for audience being a more reliable signal, I mean that when I receive a Create(Note), I cannot reliably tell whether it was made to a community or not. Mastodon users may tag communities in a mention, and they may intend to post the topic there, but they may also just be tagging to community as a reference in post content.
-
For that reason and that reason alone I cannot infer community for any given object based on to and cc.
Could you elaborate on this?
I think both to and audience are not reliable signals. The object should be present in context in order to be considered published in the community.
>Now, audience, on the other hand... is a good signal.
I thought Lemmy devs decided to address community in to instead of audience. Any news on that front?
-
Just over a year after Go's OpenAPI generator let me down, the #ActivityPub Content-Type causes the same problem again, this time in Python:
example_client/api/default/put_object.py:34:62: SyntaxError: Simple statements must be separated by newlines or semicolons
|
33 | _kwargs["json"] = _body
34 | headers["Content-Type"] = "application/ld+json; profile="https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams""
| ^Is it really that unusual to include parameters in MIME types like this? I'm sure I've seen them all over the place.
Or am I venturing off the beaten track by trying to be explicit about them in my openapi.yml file?
#ActivityPubDev #BangHeadHere
-
Specifically with sending Update, I have no real objections except one cannot simply assume that two groups being addressed constitutes a cross-post.
... for the simple reason that Mastodon conflates addressing with mentions.
For that reason and that reason alone I cannot infer community for any given object based on to and cc.
Now, audience, on the other hand... is a good signal.
So I am totally on board with multiple audiences being updated.
-
Just spend the tiny bit of extra time and implement basic support for federation policies. Keep track of data snd where it comes from, such that you can react to changes over time
