Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in 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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in 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