Adding/removing "pinned statuses" to an actor
Technical Discussion
1
Posts
1
Posters
8
Views
-
Mastodon has a concept called "pinned statuses", which is a special collection attached to a Person actor.
https://docs.joinmastodon.org/spec/activitypub/#featured
It wasn't readily known how this collection is updated and federated (not without code achaeology), but claire@social.sitedethib.com recently shared some additional info :smiley:
- The actor itself will issue an
Addactivity targeting the collection with the status inobject. - This activity is sent to all followers of the actor.
- No activity is sent if the actor has no remote followers.
- A
Removeis sent when a pinned post is unpinned.
This is what the
Addlooks like:{ "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "type": "Add", "actor": "https://example.org/users/testUser", "target": "https://example.org/users/testUser/collections/featured", "object": "https://example.org/users/testUser/statuses/115266412340579560" }The corresponding
Removeis identical except fortype, which is of course,Remove. - The actor itself will issue an
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Currently whenever a POST is sent to an inbox the response body is ignored. The http status code is checked for errors but that's it. Perhaps some more complex information about the state of the receiving ingress queue could be conveyed in the body.
-
@gaditb can i add you to acknowledgements in the FEP?
-
@evan does AP have a way to send control messages, just meant for the receiving server?
-
rimu@piefed.social I think it might have been ignored because I don't serve a moderator collection as per 1b12.
I'll try to get that set up this week and test again :see_no_evil:
-
fentiger@mastodon.social yes I was also thinking of the venerable 429.
evan the thing is, both approaches rely on the receiving end to support it. I would make the argument that a 429 would have nominal support from some implementations, but then again I wouldn't actually bet money on it.
Either way you're looking at an FEP to establish flow control signalling or 429 handling. I'd then make the argument that putting together guidance for 429 (+ exponential back off) is easier than specifying flow control logic.
-
@evan No, you haven't. You just need to back off and retry, just as you do for an ACK timeout in TCP.
-
fentiger@mastodon.social yes, but by that point you've failed. What I want is to have more adaptive sending, so you don't get to the 429 code.
