Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only first by slipeer · Pull Request #270 · matrix-org/matrix-python-sdk

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer · 2018-08-10T08:29:04Z

This is fix for #106 issue
Rooom state server reply may contain more then one m.room.aliases update_aliases() method must collect aliases from all of them.

Additionally in this code only get_room_state() can raise MatrixRequestError - there is no need to enclose to try block more strings.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Kardash slipeer@gmail.com

non-Jedi

Other than comment, this LGTM. Note that this doesn't close #106 because the _process_state_event method also needs to be changed to account for multiple m.room.aliases state events.

non-Jedi · 2018-09-02T21:17:20Z

 Returns:
 boolean: True if the aliases changed, False if not
 """
+ response = None


I'm having trouble understanding why this is necessary. If try block below is successful, response will be bound to something, and if it isn't successful, the method terminates without going further.

I agree this is an excessive reinsurance

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:54:13Z

 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False
+ room.aliases = []


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T07:56:49Z

 ev["content"]["aliases"] = aliases
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is aliases
+ assert room.aliases == aliases


Since now we are processing list element by element, is will no longer work here.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:01:04Z

 ev["type"] = "m.room.aliases"
 room._process_state_event(ev)
- assert room.aliases is None
+ assert room.aliases == []


Since aliases is initialized as an empty list, it can no longer be None.

slipeer · 2018-09-03T08:04:45Z


 room.name = False
 room.topic = False
- room.aliases = False


I found that when initializing aliases in rooms.py used empty list
matrix-python-sdk/matrix_client/room.py
Line 43 in 00186ba
self.aliases= []
, so using False here doesn't look correct.

Zil0

This looks nice if not for the small bug underlined :)

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:46Z

- return False
 except MatrixRequestError:
 return False
+ self.aliases = []


I'd rather have self.aliases.clear() here.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T21:44:53Z

+ for alias in chunk["content"]["aliases"]:
+ if alias not in self.aliases:
+ self.aliases.append(alias)
+ changed = True


I don't think this works as expected. Since self.aliases will always be empty because of self.aliases = [] above, changed will always be True as long as there is at least one alias, even if it's the same as before.

Zil0 · 2018-10-04T22:01:37Z

Is there a reason why Room.aliases is not a set? It seems unlikely that we need ordering (as it is random anyway since it comes from a dict) or indexing, while this PR adds membership tests that could benefit a set, especially in _process_state_event. The only point I can see is to avoid confusing a user, since it is easy to assume from the look of it that an attribute called aliases is a list. Thoughts anyone?

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

slipeer changed the title ~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last~~Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only firstAug 10, 2018

non-Jedi reviewed Sep 2, 2018
View reviewed changes

non-Jedi added bug Client layer labels Sep 2, 2018

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 5eb3260 to 8ed4dfaCompare September 3, 2018 07:49

Handle all m.room.aliases chunk, not only last
fd43c54

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 8ed4dfa to 173c19cCompare September 3, 2018 07:50

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Handle all m.room.aliases, not only first in _process_state_event too
3855f12

slipeer force-pushed the issue106 branch from 173c19c to 3855f12Compare September 3, 2018 08:03

slipeer commented Sep 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 suggested changes Oct 4, 2018
View reviewed changes

Zil0 added the Awaiting Changes label Jan 24, 2019

Uh oh!

Conversation

slipeer commented Aug 10, 2018

Uh oh!

non-Jedi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

slipeerSep 3, 2018• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Zil0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Zil0 commented Oct 4, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

slipeer commented Aug 10, 2018

Uh oh!

non-Jedi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

slipeerSep 3, 2018• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Zil0 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Zil0 commented Oct 4, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

slipeer commented Aug 10, 2018

Uh oh!

slipeerSep 3, 2018•
edited
Loading

slipeerSep 3, 2018•
edited
Loading

slipeerSep 3, 2018•
edited
Loading