-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
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 error codes from MSC4178 #1944
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
* `M_THREEPID_MEDIUM_NOT_SUPPORTED` | ||
The homeserver does not support adding email addresses. | ||
* `M_INVALID_PARAM` | ||
The email address given was not valid. |
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.
This adds the error codes to /register/email/requestToken
which I think is ok even though the MSC only mentioned /account/3pid/email/requestToken
. However, the description of the 400 response doesn't seem to be shared between the two endpoints which means the new error codes don't render on /account/3pid/email/requestToken
. I assume we'd probably want to have the codes show on both endpoints?
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.
Thanks, I think in my double-msc confusion I added them to the wrong one, so they just weren't on the one they were supposed to be on at all.
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.
The changes here LGTM. Though looking at the preview I can see that the example 400 response uses error code M_THREEPID_IN_USE
, which are not one of the possible error codes.
Should that be one of the ones on the list? Or is that one not actually specced, and the example should be updated?
Hmm, good point. Element looks for that code so it looks like it probably ought to be on the list. I don't know whether this would need another MSC to add though, wdyt? |
@dbkr Looks like this errcode comes from the Identity Service API. So it is defined in Matrix, just not by the C-S spec. If we're being pedantic, this is technically a separate API and could have an MSC to add that errcode. But I suspect such an MSC would have no objection, as it's an obvious change. So... to skip the time sink, I'd vote to skip the MSC stage and just add the errcode to the list of possible responses. |
Specs matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#4178
Pull Request Checklist
Preview: https://pr1944--matrix-spec-previews.netlify.app