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

Deleting a post vs deleting an entire comment tree

Technical Discussion
65 15 11

Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
  • read more

  • @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
    - ...?

    read more

  • @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.

    read more

  • @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.

    read more

  • 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.

    read more

  • @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.

    read more

  • trwnh@mastodon.social it signals that the actor is removing the context from the targeted audience.

    The audience can optionally announce it, and receivers synchronizing with that audience (per 1b12) should follow suit and remove the context as well.

    read more

  • @julian what does Remove(Context) mean here?

    read more
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    16 Views
    Week in Fediverse 2025-10-24Servers- Betula v1.5.0- Vernissage Server v1.25.0- Mastodon v4.4.8- Ktistec v3.1.1- Wafrn v2025.10.01- Mobilizon v5.2.0- Misskey v2025.10.1- NeoDB v0.12.4- Merp Relay v0.3.0- comments: Server component for comment tracking systemsClients- IceCubesApp v2.0.8- Mangane v1.18.1- Photon v2.1.1- Blorp v1.9.26Tools and Plugins- Poduptime v5.5.4- Fediverse follows quiz- Vulpes Porto: Bot to post remotely or locally hosted photos daily at set timesFor developers- Fedialgo v1.2.23- apkit v0.3.3- roboherd v0.1.12Protocol- Server-Sent Events For the ActivityPub APIArticles- Understanding Decentralized Social Feed Curation on Mastodon- Fediverse Report #139-----#WeekInFediverse #Fediverse #ActivityPubPrevious edition: https://mitra.social/objects/0199f3d4-c2ce-a6c6-de48-dcb254582434
  • 0 Votes
    2 Posts
    14 Views
    I've started work on an experimental project called ActivityPDS, the initial goal was to prove reusing the same OAuth profile as AT Protocol for ActivityPub, but I don't have much time to work on it
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    15 Views
    Apologies in advance if I misrepresented anybody or missed any crucial bits of information. Jesse Karmani (jesseplusplus@mastodon.social), Ted Thibodeau Jr. (tallted@mastodon.social, and Julian Lam (julian@activitypub.space) in attendance Julian provided an update on adoption of FEP 7888 Both Piefed and Lemmy have adopted 7888, and will begin publishing resolvable context collections in their next release Jesse opened a PR to Mastodon, which received preliminary approval from Gargron@mastodon.social (ed. it was later merged, rolled back, updated, a new PR opened, which was then merged) This PR is the first of two planned pull requests. The first generates the outgoing context (the same as what Lemmy/Piefed have done recently) The seconds handles incoming contexts and backfills Jesse was asked whether it would conflict with existing reply-tree crawling methods, but the two are complementary. She expects additional discussion before the PR is opened. Julian noted that it would be helpful if statistics/analytics were gathered by the Mastodon team to see how conversation contexts and backfill works at scale; admits that existing implementations and testing has been small scale and may not reflect real-world usage. Julian noted that Lemmy's implementation (nutomic@lemmy.ml) does not paginate their resolvable context implementation. All objects are listed in one OrderedCollection Jesse noted that she followed Mastodon's pagination convention for collections. Context inheritance Julian asked for opinions on whether contexts were inherited in existing implementations. Notes that NodeBB inherits parent context, but checks further up the known parent chain for further contexts Julian admits that not everybody can and should do this, is also not sure anymore whether NodeBB actually does this. Julian notes the ideal implementation would be every object referencing their immediate parent, which would lead to the entire collection referring to the same context collection. Jesse: Decodon inherits immediate parent context only Ted: notes that this is a reinvention of inReplyTo Julian and Jesse note that there are marked differences between crawling the reply chain. A short discussion about how netnews and usenet handled reply chains was had. Julian notes that Lemmy will not inherit context. Every object will point back to its own server's context collection. This was a conscious decision by Nutomic as each instance is meant to consider its own representation of remote content as the canonical representation ActivityPub.Space Julian made a short shout-out to a new site called ActivityPub.Space, meant to be a hub for AP development discussions ("A federated space for ActivityPub discussions so that they don’t just get lost in ephemeral replies") A short double-back to NNTP and how they approach "eventual consistency" Ted: “Cloud of NNTP servers are all hosts of articles and replies.” Strictly speaking it’s not a reply tree as replies can be inReplyTo multiple parents
  • 0 Votes
    12 Posts
    11 Views
    @silverpill @scott @phnt sounds good - like I said, the licensing is totally up to you!personally, I prefer permissive licenses over copyleft stuff in all my projects. for me, it's a lot of extra work + research time that isn't on the codebase...note that, in Rust, it's sometimes *a lot* of extra work, so do be mindful that you might limit adoption and widespread usage. if that's what you're aiming for (in terms of corporate/private usage), it's probably a good pick! :Dyou might also provide a dynamically linked MIT wrapper w/ `cargo-add-dynamic`. just saves everyone some time lol https://crates.io/crates/cargo-add-dynamic