This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
WIP: Dmr/unblock catchup #15228
WIP: Dmr/unblock catchup #15228
Changes from 4 commits
6b70d44
bebd7d2
c813f89
0aa0201
7f97783
1cb55e9
f139247
31f2b15
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
According to some failing tests we need to keep a way to shortcut this code for the backfill use case.
In this case this function is called with backward extremities we want to use as a base for backfilling to
check each extremity in turn and ignore those which users on our server wouldn't be able to see.
So I think there is no way here that we will leak events we shouldn't, so skipping this should be fine.
Why does it make the tests fail ? I haven't looked deep enough yet to understand.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is a little dodgy. In this situation,
host2
is in the room prior toevent_2
being created, so it's correct that we sendevent_2
as the catchup event.BUT: suppose that the order of event was
then host 2 wouldn't be privvy to event 2. I think we'll either
I need to probably make another test case and stare at this some more.