Skip to content

Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale Logo Fediverso

Social Forum federato con il resto del mondo. Non contano le istanze, contano le persone

Implementing postingRestrictedToMods

Technical Discussion
6 3 10

Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
  • 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

    read more

  • @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).

    read more

  • 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?

    cc jdp23@neuromatch.social mariusor@metalhead.club

    read more

  • mariusor@metalhead.club that works too!

    read more

  • 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 — v4.8.0.

    read more

  • @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.

    read more

  • @nutomic I solved this by having an the instance be an actor that is an intermediary for all operations. All activities get CC'ed to the followers of the user actor, and of the instance actor. (replace instance with community/group, whatever you use as an aggregate element for your implementation)

    This should cover all interested parties imho.

    The potential downside is that instances need to explicitly operate between themselves with follow operations (which conveniently also solves the problem of unwanted interactions with less savory corners of the fediverse).

    Like I said, a problem of addressing. :P

    read more

  • @tofeo  :verified: @julian ...where "always" means "since before there was even Mastodon".

    A side-effect of their model, present at least on Hubzilla and Hubzilla's descendants, including still existing (streams) and Forte, is that comments/replies cannot exist in a stream without a) a parent and b) a start post. On all of them, including Friendica, it isn't a post if it replies to something, very much unlike Mastodon where a thread is a bunch of posts.

    Depending on whom you ask, a conversation looks either like this:
    Post
    Comment
    Comment
    CommentComment
    Comment
    Commentor like this:
    read more
Post suggeriti