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

Change the server aggregation for edits #1440

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 21, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions changelogs/client_server/newsfragments/1440.feature
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
Changes to the server-side aggregation of `m.replace` (edit) events, as per [MSC3925](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3925).
74 changes: 41 additions & 33 deletions content/client-server-api/modules/event_replacements.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -133,13 +133,6 @@ being overwritten entirely by `m.new_content`, with the exception of `m.relates_
which is left *unchanged*. Any `m.relates_to` property within `m.new_content`
is ignored.

{{% boxes/note %}}
Note that server implementations must not *actually* overwrite
the original event's `content`: instead the server presents it as being overwritten
Comment on lines -137 to -138
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We might want to stick the first part of this note somewhere still, just in case servers do super strange things with their events?

Possibly at the end of the server implementation section with a bit more detail?

{{% boxes/note %}}
Note that server implementations must not *actually* overwrite
the original event's `content`. Doing so would cause the original
event to fail signature checks.
{{% /boxes/note %}}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This feels like it is more confusing than helpful. As a server implementer, I am led to wonder wtf this "actually" means.

I have added some more words to the "server-side aggregation" section which might help here (97b7544#diff-7791fd17e89af8337a50aaa7e5fdf6cb1c20013d38cd491cda852e696884be76R248).

when it is served over the client-server API. See [Server-side replacement of content](#server-side-replacement-of-content)
below.
{{% /boxes/note %}}

For example, given a pair of events:

```json
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -195,14 +188,17 @@ replacement event.

##### Server-side aggregation of `m.replace` relationships

{{< changed-in v="1.7" >}}

Note that there can be multiple events with an `m.replace` relationship to a
given event (for example, if an event is edited multiple times). These should
be [aggregated](#aggregations) by the homeserver.

The aggregation format of `m.replace` relationships gives the `event_id`,
`origin_server_ts`, and `sender` of the **most recent** replacement event. The
most recent event is determined by comparing `origin_server_ts`; if two or more
replacement events have identical `origin_server_ts`, the event with the
The aggregation format of `m.replace` relationships gives the **most recent**
replacement event, formatted [as normal](#room-event-format).

The most recent event is determined by comparing `origin_server_ts`; if two or
more replacement events have identical `origin_server_ts`, the event with the
lexicographically largest `event_id` is treated as more recent.

This aggregation is bundled under the `unsigned` property as `m.relations` for any
Expand All @@ -211,49 +207,61 @@ event that is the target of an `m.replace` relationship. For example:
```json
{
"event_id": "$original_event_id",
// irrelevant fields not shown
"type": "m.room.message",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fwiw, I'm still very sad that #688 isn't a thing, which would ideally make this sort of example easy to update in the future.

Non-blocking for this review.

"content": {
"body": "I really like cake",
"msgtype": "m.text",
"formatted_body": "I really like cake"
},
"unsigned": {
"m.relations": {
"m.replace": {
"event_id": "$latest_edit_event_id",
"origin_server_ts": 1649772304313,
"sender": "@editing_user:localhost"
"type": "m.room.message",
"content": {
"body": "* I really like *chocolate* cake",
"msgtype": "m.text",
"m.new_content": {
"body": "I really like *chocolate* cake",
"msgtype": "m.text"
},
"m.relates_to": {
"rel_type": "m.replace",
"event_id": "$original_event_id"
}
}
}
}
}
// irrelevant fields not shown
}
```

If the original event is
[redacted](#redactions), any
If the original event is [redacted](#redactions), any
`m.replace` relationship should **not** be bundled with it (whether or not any
subsequent replacements are themselves redacted). Note that this behaviour is
specific to the `m.replace` relationship. See also [redactions of edited
events](#redactions-of-edited-events) below.

##### Server-side replacement of content
**Note:** the `content` of the original event is left intact. In particular servers
should **not** replace the content with that of the replacement event.

Whenever an `m.replace` is to be bundled with an event as above, the server
should also modify the content of the original event according to the
`m.new_content` of the most recent replacement event (determined as above).

An exception applies to [`GET /_matrix/client/v3/rooms/{roomId}/event/{eventId}`](#get_matrixclientv3roomsroomideventeventid),
which should return the unmodified event (though the relationship should still
be bundled, as described above).
{{ boxes/rationale }}
In previous versions of the specification, servers were expected to replace the
content of an edited event whenever it was served to clients (with the
exception of the
[`GET /_matrix/client/v3/rooms/{roomId}/event/{eventId}`](#get_matrixclientv3roomsroomideventeventid)
endpoint). However, that behaviour made reliable client-side implementation
difficult, and servers should no longer make this replacement.
{{ /boxes/rationale }}

#### Client behaviour

Clients can often ignore `m.replace` events, because any events returned
by the server to the client will be updated by the server to account for
subsequent edits.

However, clients should apply the replacement themselves when the server is
unable to do so. This happens in the following situations:

* The client has already received and stored the original event before the
message edit event arrives.

* The original event (and hence its replacement) are encrypted.
Since the server will not replace the content of any edited events, clients
should take note of any replacement events they receive, and apply the
replacement whenever possible and appropriate.

Client authors are reminded to take note of the requirements for [Validity of
replacement events](#validity-of-replacement-events), and to ignore any
Expand Down