WIP: Dmr/unblock catchup #15228
WIP: Dmr/unblock catchup #15228
Conversation
I can't see why erased senders makes a difference here?
| # ASSERT | ||
| # We should have: | ||
| # - not sent event 3: it's not ours, and the room is partial stated | ||
| # - fallen back to sending event 2: it's the most recent event in the room |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a little dodgy. In this situation, host2 is in the room prior to event_2 being created, so it's correct that we send event_2 as the catchup event.
BUT: suppose that the order of event was
- event 2
- host2 joins
- event 3
then host 2 wouldn't be privvy to event 2. I think we'll either
- block awaitng event2's full state, or
- incorrectly send event 2 to host2
I need to probably make another test case and stare at this some more.
| @@ -643,14 +643,13 @@ def check_event_is_visible( | |||
| # this check but would base the filtering on an outdated view of the membership events. | |||
|
|
|||
| partial_state_invisible_events = set() | |||
| if filter_out_erased_senders: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Am I missing something here? Why was the original logic doing this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have put some comments regarding that in the original PR.
We perhaps want to use a dedicated boolean like filter_partial_state for this (and keep your rename to filter_out_erased_senders for the rest of the code).
I think the logic I had in mind is that we don't care about having non local events when checking if we should use an event as an extremity for backfill: the remote server would then filter on his side anyway what need to be filtered, with a (potentially) a more current view than the joining server.
|
For people coming here after me, |
| @@ -631,44 +652,49 @@ def check_event_is_visible( | |||
| # otherwise a room could be fully joined after we retrieve those, which would then bypass | |||
| # this check but would base the filtering on an outdated view of the membership events. | |||
|
|
|||
| partial_state_invisible_events = set() | |||
| if not check_history_visibility_only: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
|
I'm going to spin out the refactor parts of this in #15240. |
Intended to fix #15220.
Follows from #14404.
Will be commitwise reviewable.