If `delete_device_after` is configured, that period should be counted for webxdc instances from the
last status update, otherwise nothing prevents from deleting them. Use `msgs.timestamp_rcvd` to
store the last status update timestamp, it anyway isn't used for anything except displaying a
detailed message info. Also, as `ephemeral::select_expired_messages()` now also checks
`timestamp_rcvd`, we have an improvement that a message is guaranteed not to be deleted for the
`delete_device_after` period since its receipt. Before only the sort timestamp was checked which is
derived from the "sent" timestamp.
Let's add a 1-minute tolerance to `Params::MemberListTimestamp`.
This adds to the group membership consistency algo the following properties:
- If remote group membership changes were made by two members in parallel, both of them are applied,
no matter in which order the messages are received.
- If we remove a member locally, only explicit remote member additions/removals made in parallel are
allowed, but not the synchronisation of the member list from "To". Before, if somebody managed to
reply earlier than receiving our removal of a member, we added it back which doesn't look good.
This change avoids the race between
`provide_backup` changing the state from NoProvider to Pending
and a call to `get_backup_qr` or `get_backup_qr_svg`.
With this change `get_backup_qr` and `get_backup_qr_svg`
always block until QR code is available,
even if `provide_backup` was not called yet.
- Always emit `ContactsChanged` from `contact::update_last_seen()` if a contact was seen recently
just for simplicity and symmetry with `RecentlySeenLoop::run()` which also may emit several events
for single contact.
- Fix sleep time calculation in `RecentlySeenLoop::run()` -- `now` must be updated on every
iteration, before the initial value was used every time which led to progressively long sleeps.
Instead, look up the 1:1 chat in `receive_imf::add_parts()`. This is a more generic approach to fix
assigning outgoing reactions to 1:1 chats in the multi-device setup. Although currently both
approaches give the same result, this way we can even implement a "react privately"
functionality. Maybe it sounds useless, but it seems better to have less reaction-specific code.
we checked for tombstones already using `is_trash()`,
however, we've overseen that tombstones get deleted at some point :)
therefore, just do not treat loading failures of the weak msg_id as errors -
usually, they are not - and if, just the normal summary is shown.
in theory, we could check for existance explicitly before tryong load_from_db,
however, that would be additional code (and maybe another database call)
and not worth the effort.
anyways, this commit also adds an explicit test
for physical deletion after housekeeping.
use get_summary_text_without_prefix() to get raw summaries without prefixes,
this is needed for reaction summaries,
where we also do not show the name, so we do not want to show "Forwarded" as well.
shows the last reaction in chatlist's summaries if there is no
newer message.
the reason to show reactions in the summary, is to make them a _little_
more visible when one is not in the chat. esp. in not-so-chatty or in
one-to-ones chats this becomes handy: imaging a question and someone
"answers" with "thumbs up" ...
otoh, reactions are still tuned down on purpose: no notifications, chats
are opend as usual, the chatlist is not sorted by reactions and also the
date in the summary refer to the last message - i thought quite a bit
about that, this seems to be good compromise and will raise the fewest
questions. it is somehow clear to the users that reactions are not the
same as a real message. also, it is comparable easy to implement - no
UI changes required :)
all that is very close to what whatsapp is doing (figured that out by
quite some testing ... to cite @adbenitez: if in doubt, we can blame
whatsapp :)
technically, i first wanted to go for the "big solution" and add two
more columns, chat_id and timestamp, however, it seemed a bit bloated if
we really only need the last one. therefore, i just added the last
reaction information to the chat's param, which seems more performant
but also easier to code :)
