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

/rooms/.../members is missing at and not_membership parameters #1945

Closed
Half-Shot opened this issue Mar 27, 2019 · 6 comments · Fixed by #2035
Closed

/rooms/.../members is missing at and not_membership parameters #1945

Half-Shot opened this issue Mar 27, 2019 · 6 comments · Fixed by #2035
Assignees
Labels
client-server Client-Server API spec-omission implemented but not currently specified

Comments

@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor

Riot is calling these, but they are not given in the spec under https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/unstable.html#get-matrix-client-r0-rooms-roomid-members.

This could be a synapse or a Riot bug, but given it sounds like it's useful, I'm tracking it in here.

@Half-Shot Half-Shot added the spec-omission implemented but not currently specified label Mar 27, 2019
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Duplicate of #1227

@turt2live turt2live marked this as a duplicate of #1227 Mar 27, 2019
@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor Author

No it's not. That proposal happened and the resulting spec PR got merged, with this missing #1758

@Half-Shot Half-Shot reopened this Mar 28, 2019
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

The spec pr is not fully merged, and I don't think it's a good idea to keep tracking lazy loading omissions like this. I'd rather see someone go through and properly make the spec reflect reality for lazy loading so we can consider the proposal merged.

@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor Author

Half-Shot commented Mar 28, 2019

With respect, this is one of those things that is going to get lost. I would be fine with this, if lazy-loading wasn't now in use by Riot by default and therefore any third party implementations now HAVE to implement these keys to have a working client.

It's a bit lame to have open issues, but really I don't know why we have a situation where a spec isn't fully merged. With respect to fixing the spec, I am happy to close this once we have fixed the issue.

@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor Author

Discussed oob with @turt2live that we can keep the issue open, but there are people on the case.

@turt2live turt2live added the client-server Client-Server API label Mar 28, 2019
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented May 10, 2019

see also #1868

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API spec-omission implemented but not currently specified
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants