it was all the time questionable if not encrypting broadcast lists
rules the issue that recipients may know each other cryptographically.
however, meanwhile with chatmail, unncrypted broadcasts are no longer possible,
and we actively broke workflows eg. from this teacher:
https://support.delta.chat/t/broadcast-funktioniert-nach-update-nicht-meht/3694
this basically reverts commit
7e5907daf2
which was that time added last-minute and without lots discussions :)
let the students get their homework again :)
instead of showing addresses in info message, provide an API to get the
contact-id.
UI can then make the info message tappable and open the contact profile
in scope
the corresponding iOS PR - incl. **screencast** - is at
https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-ios/pull/2652 ; jsonrpc can come
in a subsequent PR when things are settled on android/ios
the number of parameters in `add_info_msg_with_cmd` gets bigger and
bigger, however, i did not want to refactor this in this PR. it is also
not really adding complexity
closes#6702
---------
Co-authored-by: link2xt <link2xt@testrun.org>
Co-authored-by: Hocuri <hocuri@gmx.de>
The test is mostly testing that groups can be matched
even if Message-ID is replaced.
Delta Chat no longer places group ID into Message-ID
or References, so the test is not
testing anything other than the ability
to match groups based on References header.
When it is possible to test that no unhidden contact
is creating by looking through the contact list
or get the contact ID as the from_id of received message,
do it to avoid acidentally creating a contact
or changing its origin before testing.
SecureJoin and importing a vCard are the primary
ways we want to support for creating contacts.
Typing in an email address and relying on Autocrypt
results in sending the first message unencrypted
and we want to clearly separate unencrypted and encrypted
chats in the future.
To make the tests more stable, we set up test contacts
with vCards as this always immediately
results in creating a single encrypted chat
and this is not going to change.
Currently broadcast lists creation is synced across devices. Groups creation, in some means, too --
on a group promotion by a first message. Otoh, messages deletion is synced now as well. So, for
feature-completeness, sync chats deletion too.
When there is a broken group (which might happen with multi-transport),
people want to leave it.
The problem is that every "Group left" message notifies all other
members and pops up the chat, so that other members also want to leave
the group.
This PR makes it so that "Group left" messages don't create a
notification, don't cause a number-in-a-cirle badge counter on the chat,
and don't sort up the chat in the chatlist.
If a group is deleted, then the group won't pop up when someone leaves
it; this worked fine already before this PR, and there also is a test
for it.
> _greetings from the ice of the deutsche bahn 🚂🚃🚃🚃 always a pleasure to
see how well delta chat meanwhile performs in bad networks :)_
this PR adds an API to request other chat members to replace the message
text of an already sent message. scope is mainly to fix typos. this
feature is known from whatsapp, telegram, signal, and is
[requested](https://support.delta.chat/t/retract-edit-sent-messages/1918)
[since](https://support.delta.chat/t/edit-messages-in-delta-chat/899)
[years](https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android/issues/198).
technically, a message with an
[`Obsoletes:`](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2076#section-3.6)
header is sent out.
```
From: alice@nine
To: bob@nine
Message-ID: 2000@nine
In-Reply-To: 1000@nine
Obsoletes: 1000@nine
Edited: this is the new text
```
the body is the new text, prefixed by the static text `Edited:` (which
is not a header). the latter is to make the message appear more nicely
in Non-Delta-MUA. save for the `In-Reply-To` header. the `Edited:`
prefix is removed by Delta Chat on receiving.
headers should be protected and moved to e2ee part as usual.
corrected message text is flagged, and UI should show this state, in
practise as "Edited" beside the date.
in case, the original message is not found, nothing happens and the
correction message is trashes (assuming the original was deleted).
question: is the `Obsoletes:` header a good choice? i _thought_ there is
some more specifica RFC, but i cannot find sth. in any case, it should
be an header that is not used otherwise by MUA, to make sure no wanted
messages disappear.
what is NOT done and out of scope:
- optimise if messages are not yet sent out. this is doable, but
introduces quite some cornercaes and may not be worth the effort
- replaces images or other attachments. this is also a bit cornercasy
and beyond "typo fixing", and better be handled by "delete for me and
others" (which may come soon, having the idea now, it seems easy :)
- get edit history in any way. not sure if this is worth the effort,
remember, as being a private messenger, we assume trust among chat
members. it is also questionable wrt privacy, seized devices etc.
- add text where nothing was before; again, scope is "typo fixing",
better avoid cornercases
- saved messages are not edited (this is anyway questionable)
- quoted texts, that are used for the case the original message is
deleted, are not updated
- edits are ignored when the original message is not there yet (out of
order, not yet downloaded)
- message status indicator does not show if edits are sent out or not -
similar to reactions, webxdc updates, sync messages. signal has the same
issue :) still, connectivity should show if there are messages pending
<img width="366" alt="Screenshot 2025-02-17 at 17 25 02"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a4a53996-438b-47ef-9004-2c9062eea5d7"
/>
corresponding iOS branch (no PR yet):
https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-ios/compare/main...r10s/edit-messages
---------
Co-authored-by: l <link2xt@testrun.org>
When receiving messages, blobs will be deduplicated with the new
function `create_and_deduplicate_from_bytes()`. For sending files, this
adds a new function `set_file_and_deduplicate()` instead of
deduplicating by default.
This is for
https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-core-rust/issues/6265; read the
issue description there for more details.
TODO:
- [x] Set files as read-only
- [x] Don't do a write when the file is already identical
- [x] The first 32 chars or so of the 64-character hash are enough. I
calculated that if 10b people (i.e. all of humanity) use DC, and each of
them has 200k distinct blob files (I have 4k in my day-to-day account),
and we used 20 chars, then the expected value for the number of name
collisions would be ~0.0002 (and the probability that there is a least
one name collision is lower than that) [^1]. I added 12 more characters
to be on the super safe side, but this wouldn't be necessary and I could
also make it 20 instead of 32.
- Not 100% sure whether that's necessary at all - it would mainly be
necessary if we might hit a length limit on some file systems (the
blobdir is usually sth like
`accounts/2ff9fc096d2f46b6832b24a1ed99c0d6/dc.db-blobs` (53 chars), plus
64 chars for the filename would be 117).
- [x] "touch" the files to prevent them from being deleted
- [x] TODOs in the code
For later PRs:
- Replace `BlobObject::create(…)` with
`BlobObject::create_and_deduplicate(…)` in order to deduplicate
everytime core creates a file
- Modify JsonRPC to deduplicate blob files
- Possibly rename BlobObject.name to BlobObject.file in order to prevent
confusion (because `name` usually means "user-visible-name", not "name
of the file on disk").
[^1]: Calculated with both https://printfn.github.io/fend/ and
https://www.geogebra.org/calculator, both of which came to the same
result
([1](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/bbb62550-3781-48b5-88b1-ba0e29c28c0d),
[2](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/82171212-b797-4117-a39f-0e132eac7252))
---------
Co-authored-by: l <link2xt@testrun.org>
- This [is said to lead improve compilation
speed](https://matklad.github.io/2021/02/27/delete-cargo-integration-tests.html#Assorted-Tricks)
- When grepping for a function invocation, this makes it easy to see whether it's from a test or "real" code
- We're calling the files e.g. `chat_tests.rs` instead of `tests.rs` for the same reason why we moved `imap/mod.rs` to `imap.rs`: Otherwise, your editor always shows you that you're in the file `tests.rs` and you don't know which one.
This is only moving mimeparser and chat tests, because these were the
biggest files; we can move more files in subsequent PRs if we like it.
