Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Add replaces_state to state events in the /sync response #274

Open
manuroe opened this issue Mar 27, 2018 · 4 comments
Open

Add replaces_state to state events in the /sync response #274

manuroe opened this issue Mar 27, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
A-Client-Server Issues affecting the CS API enhancement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol

Comments

@manuroe
Copy link
Contributor

manuroe commented Mar 27, 2018

In case an event has a prev_content, it would be useful to know also the id of the event where this prev_content comes from.

One use case is the redaction of a state event that was in the past like in:

  • state was A, then later B, then later C
  • B is redacted

The prev_content of C, that contains redacted data of B, must be pruned to avoid leaked data as described at element-hq/element-ios#443.

Knowing the event_id of the state event which C replaces, the client will be able to locally prune C without requiring any request to the homeserver.
To solve this, Riot-iOS used to make a room initial sync but is was an expensive process server side (element-hq/element-ios#1823).

@richvdh richvdh changed the title Add prev_event_id to event Add prev_event_id to state events in the /sync response Mar 27, 2018
@richvdh richvdh added the enhancement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol label Mar 27, 2018
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Related: matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#819

@richvdh richvdh changed the title Add prev_event_id to state events in the /sync response Add replaces_state to state events in the /sync response Mar 27, 2018
@turt2live turt2live added the A-Client-Server Issues affecting the CS API label Sep 6, 2018
@joepie91
Copy link

This should probably be tagged with spec-omission.

@ShadowJonathan
Copy link
Contributor

Shouldn't this be simply added as a MSC, or to the spec?

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

this is the spec, and it might not need an MSC if it's a bug in the spec.

@richvdh richvdh transferred this issue from matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals Mar 1, 2022
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
A-Client-Server Issues affecting the CS API enhancement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants