-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 103
docs: deprecate protection-broken and related stuff #7018
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
8d51fe8
to
cd78c7a
Compare
@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ pub enum Config { | |||
#[strum(props(default = "172800"))] | |||
GossipPeriod, | |||
|
|||
/// Feature flag for verified 1:1 chats; the UI should set it | |||
/// Deprecated. Feature flag for verified 1:1 chats; the UI should set it |
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.
/// Deprecated. Feature flag for verified 1:1 chats; the UI should set it | |
/// Deprecated 2025-07. Feature flag for verified 1:1 chats; the UI should set it |
@@ -1935,7 +1935,7 @@ impl Chat { | |||
Ok(is_encrypted) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
/// Returns true if the chat was protected, and then an incoming message broke this protection. | |||
/// Deprecated. Returns true if the chat was protected, and then an incoming message broke this protection. |
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.
/// Deprecated. Returns true if the chat was protected, and then an incoming message broke this protection. | |
/// Deprecated 2025-07. Returns true if the chat was protected, and then an incoming message broke this protection. |
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ pub struct FullChat { | |||
fresh_message_counter: usize, | |||
// is_group - please check over chat.type in frontend instead | |||
is_contact_request: bool, | |||
is_protection_broken: bool, | |||
is_protection_broken: bool, // deprecated |
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.
is_protection_broken: bool, // deprecated | |
is_protection_broken: bool, // deprecated 2025-07 |
@@ -3869,6 +3859,8 @@ int dc_chat_is_encrypted (const dc_chat_t *chat); | |||
* | |||
* The UI should let the user confirm that this is OK with a message like | |||
* `Bob sent a message from another device. Tap to learn more` and then call dc_accept_chat(). | |||
* | |||
* @deprecated 2025-17 chats protection cannot break any longer |
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.
* @deprecated 2025-17 chats protection cannot break any longer | |
* @deprecated 2025-07 chats protection cannot break any longer |
Nice, thanks! |
@@ -503,13 +503,6 @@ char* dc_get_blobdir (const dc_context_t* context); | |||
* - `gossip_period` = How often to gossip Autocrypt keys in chats with multiple recipients, in | |||
* seconds. 2 days by default. | |||
* This is not supposed to be changed by UIs and only used for testing. | |||
* - `verified_one_on_one_chats` = Feature flag for verified 1:1 chats; the UI should set it |
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.
Variable usage is still here in receive_imf, however, and default is 0.
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.
But that code in receive_imf
is dead, how can a chat go into broken state now? We need to do some cleanup in the code apparently.
Btw, what about chats with broken protection existing before the key-contacts migration? Looked into the code quickly, but did't see anything repairing their state.
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.
Btw, what about chats with broken protection existing before the key-contacts migration? Looked into the code quickly, but did't see anything repairing their state.
Probably we should remove the ProtectionBroken
variant from ProtectionStatus
, and when loading a chat, interpret an unknown value as Unprotected
. Can come in a later PR, though.
@@ -503,13 +503,6 @@ char* dc_get_blobdir (const dc_context_t* context); | |||
* - `gossip_period` = How often to gossip Autocrypt keys in chats with multiple recipients, in | |||
* seconds. 2 days by default. | |||
* This is not supposed to be changed by UIs and only used for testing. | |||
* - `verified_one_on_one_chats` = Feature flag for verified 1:1 chats; the UI should set it |
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.
But that code in receive_imf
is dead, how can a chat go into broken state now? We need to do some cleanup in the code apparently.
Btw, what about chats with broken protection existing before the key-contacts migration? Looked into the code quickly, but did't see anything repairing their state.
came over these parts while targeting the new info message of #7008 in deltachat/deltachat-ios#2778 and deltachat/deltachat-android#3822