NodeBB <> Lemmy federation issue (re: nullable image/icon)
Technical Discussion
26
Posts
4
Posters
97
Views
-
evan@cosocial.ca I had no idea that was the case. That is very good to know and having it called out in some sort of best practices doc (an existing w3c explainer?) would be helpful :smile:
-
NodeBB v4.6.1 contains the fix so that if an avatar and cover photo are not set, they are not included in the ActivityPub actor data.
-
@julian @evan aside from potentially causing null pointer exceptions when you try to dereference null, using null is equivalent to just leaving out the statement in the first place. there's no reason to use null. the only time you'd need null values is if your schema required a certain key to be present but allowed the value to be nullable, which is generally a bad idea compared to just making the key optional. tony hoare, the inventor of null, called it their "billion-dollar mistake".
-
@julian @evan aside from potentially causing null pointer exceptions when you try to dereference null, using null is equivalent to just leaving out the statement in the first place. there's no reason to use null. the only time you'd need null values is if your schema required a certain key to be present but allowed the value to be nullable, which is generally a bad idea compared to just making the key optional. tony hoare, the inventor of null, called it their "billion-dollar mistake".
trwnh@mastodon.social said in NodeBB <> Lemmy federation issue (re: nullable image/icon):
> using null is equivalent to just leaving out the statement in the first place.That's not true, there are specific scenarios where having an explicit "no value" is significant vs "missing value"...
-
@julian if you give me any specific examples of when you would want to use null, i can recommend better alternatives. generally, it's always possible that there is missing information.
-
@julian love to see the reports of cross project colab!
-
@julian if you give me any specific examples of when you would want to use null, i can recommend better alternatives. generally, it's always possible that there is missing information.
trwnh@mastodon.social found one.
NodeBB uses
audienceto denote which audience an object (or context) belongs to.Posts and Topics in NodeBB can belong to no context at all.
nullwould be the way to communicate this, since omission might mean one isn't specified.Likewise, a Move(Context) where a topic is moved out of a category but not into another. You probably shouldnt omit
targetthere. -
@julian no, null is the same as nothing. what you want is more like [] (the empty set). in the case where you Move something without a target, you should be sending an Update instead.
-
@julian no, null is the same as nothing. what you want is more like [] (the empty set). in the case where you Move something without a target, you should be sending an Update instead.
@julian but more generally my question is, what practical application would you need to make use of an empty set []? like, a consumer encountering a value should do A, encountering a null or missing property should do B, encountering an empty set should do C... what is the difference between B and C?
-
@julian but more generally my question is, what practical application would you need to make use of an empty set []? like, a consumer encountering a value should do A, encountering a null or missing property should do B, encountering an empty set should do C... what is the difference between B and C?
trwnh@mastodon.social receiving a Move(Context) where target is null would tell NodeBB to move the topic to -1, uncategorized.
For those not supporting the catch-all bucket, deleting the context is ok too.
-
@julian so this is still in effect a Remove or Update, not a Move. if you wanted it to be a Move, you would instead have an "uncategorized" category whose id is /categories/-1 or something like that.
-
@julian if you give me any specific examples of when you would want to use null, i can recommend better alternatives. generally, it's always possible that there is missing information.
trwnh@mastodon.social oh, another one.
Glitch-soc apparently lets you hide follower counts, and federates a -1. That works but
nullwould be a more explicit statement that the follower collection is hidden/not accessible. -
@julian leaving out the totalItems statement entirely would do the same thing. the problem is when you ignore the (lack of) information presented and synthesize your own.
you could also define a vocab term for "hidden" or "unavailable", although this isn't much better than leaving it out in the first place
-
@julian leaving out the totalItems statement entirely would do the same thing. the problem is when you ignore the (lack of) information presented and synthesize your own.
you could also define a vocab term for "hidden" or "unavailable", although this isn't much better than leaving it out in the first place
trwnh@mastodon.social leaving out totalitems is absolutely not the same as explicitly declaring a null value. You don't know whether the implementation just didn't send totalItems or whether it was omitted on purpose.
-
@julian what's the difference between "not sending" vs "omitting"? those are synonyms
-
@julian what's the difference between "not sending" vs "omitting"? those are synonyms
trwnh@mastodon.social not sent due to implementation differences, rather.
-
trwnh@mastodon.social not sent due to implementation differences, rather.
@julian there's no difference on the consuming side (and in many programming languages you can check for truthiness with something like `if x.get("totalItems")` which defaults to returning null if missing anyway)
functionally, you either have the information, or you don't
-
@julian there's no difference on the consuming side (and in many programming languages you can check for truthiness with something like `if x.get("totalItems")` which defaults to returning null if missing anyway)
functionally, you either have the information, or you don't
trwnh@mastodon.social as someone working on the consuming side, that is not correct.
If my AP lib automatically assumed null when requesting an object property that didn't exist I'd consider that a bug.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Bridging has been a bit slower than usual, on and off, for the last few days. Apologies all! It should be mostly back to normal now, we’ve put some workarounds in place, and we expect to have a more permanent fix within a day or two. Sorry for the trouble, thank you for your patience with us!
-
Polls are rendering!
screenshot of the latest emoji poll rendered on the ktistec serverI'm working to get all of the little visual elements available across the Fediverse to render in a usable way on Ktistec. When released, users will also be able to vote on polls.
-
Okay, I've setup https://notes.socialcg.org/about
-
@julian i'd say the confusion is primarily that we've shifted topic around several different things and i'm still not sure which is the intended topic of the discussion :x
- deleting posts that are in a thread
- removing posts from a thread
- implications for downstream posts in a thread when some ancestor in the reply chain is deleted/removed
- deleting a thread that is in a forum
- removing a thread from a forum
- moving a thread to the "uncategorized" forum
- ...?
-
@julian if the intent is to signal what happens when nodebb moves a thread to "uncategorized", then i think the simplest thing is for nodebb to treat "uncategorized" as a forum in itself, still. you already assign them an id of -1, so you are in effect treating the "uncategorized" category as a category still.
-
@julian the confusing thing to me, though, is that both Delete and Remove already don't imply anything about posts in the thread if the thread is deleted/removed from the forum.
by default, if you Delete a thread, the forum might still have a broken link to the now-deleted thread, and the posts also have broken links to the thread.
by default, if you Remove a thread from the forum, the posts still exist within the thread.
-
trwnh@mastodon.social specifically however, is that you're not deleting the context. Just removing it.
NodeBB has the concept of a context not belonging to an audience (the "uncategorized" pseudo category.) in those specific situations, contexts would be removed from the audience, not deleted.
Lemmy and Piefed don't have these concepts, so they simply delete them. So therein lies some of the confusion I believe.
-
@julian like removing a whole thread from the forum? Remove(object=thread, target=forum)? this seems like something altogether different than removing posts from a thread.
removing threads from a forum is possible but if the thread is owned by the forum then the forum can also delete them.
the part that differs between impls is whether Delete(thing that is a context) should do anything to objects where context = the Delete.object, right? i think it makes the most sense to just orphan them.
