by #2001, processing of protection-enabled and protection-disabled
messages is only done if verification-checks pass.
unfortunately, these verification checks
were only applied on already protected chats,
so that enabling via a protection-enabled message was not possible.
this is fixed by this pr.
moreover, when inner_set_protection() fails,
the error is shown in the chat.
this avoids confusion - as long the current core
does not communicate with a UI that enables/disables protection,
everything looks just the same as in the past :)
update_device_chats() takes about 2 seconds on a modern device (Android) because the
welcome image file has to be written to the disk as a blob. The problem
was that this was done after the progress bar had vanished and before
anything else happened so that I thought that something had gone wrong
multiple times.
The UIs have to remove update_device_chats(), too..
this would exclude non-deltas from protected-chats
(where they could participate in verified-groups in the past)
and makes migration a bit harder when using a fuzzy multi-device-setup.
however, the test still takes place
when a group is created or protection is enabled/disabled.
should_encrypt() shall return Ok(false)
on peerstate=EncryptPreference::Reset
only for opportunistic groups.
for verified/protected groups (e2ee_guaranteed set),
Ok(true) or Error() should be returned.
this bug was introduced by #1946 (Require quorum to enable encryption).
a draft may contain only a quote,
without any text set yet.
these drafts cannot be sent, however, appear in the summary -
currently with the summary-text "", which results to sth.
as "Draft: " - which looks like an error or at least a bit weird.
this pr sets the summary text to "Reply" - similar to "Image", "Video" etc. -
the UI just expects some text here, not an empty string.
the result are summaries as "Draft: Reply" on all UIs -
which, btw. is also roughly the same what Signal does in this case.
the constant comes from c-core
and was used to define the size of the string-array that time.
this is no longer needed in core
and also the UIs seems not to use it
(they will treat DC_STR* like an id,
there should be no need to know the max. DC_STR* value)
