This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024.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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add a background job to automatically delete stale devices #12855
Add a background job to automatically delete stale devices #12855
Changes from 8 commits
acc97ea
df96732
7f1df5f
60bcaba
c9f474c
9735b37
4aa04e8
b61a29d
eee1864
06f027a
ca188e1
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.
From a glance it looks like this is only the case for hidden devices, but I'd rather be overly safe here.
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 comment seems to say that we shouldn't have hidden devices for remote users?
synapse/synapse/storage/databases/main/end_to_end_keys.py
Lines 1236 to 1241 in 2cc5ea9
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 see this now, but interestingly my homeserver's database seems to think otherwise:
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.
Maybe due to #6956? That talks a bit about adding a background update for this, but chose not to?
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.
Actually, would we want this check in
get_devices_not_accessed_since
instead of here? I guess it doesn't make too much of a difference, but I don't think remote devices are ever "stale"?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.
Yes that's a good point.
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.
Right, yes, that looks like it's the culprit.
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 filed #12855 for this.
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.
@clokep I think you mean #12898?