Before, only `CallEnded` was emitted for missed calls, or, if a call arrives already being stale,
`IncomingMsg`. Now:
- `CallMissed` is emitted in addition to `CallEnded`.
- `IncomingMsg` is replaced with `CallMissed` for stale calls.
Having only one event type for missed calls should simplify handling them in the apps.
This doesn't emit `CallMissed` for those who aren't allowed to call us. Also, don't emit `CallEnded`
if the caller isn't allowed to call us and the call wasn't accepted, as there's no previous
`IncomingCall` event in this case.
We already set sort_timestamp to 0 for "Messages are end-to-end encrypted."
since 8f1bf963b4.
Do this for "Others will only see this group after you sent a first message."
and "Messages in this chat use classic email and are not encrypted." as well
so no messages can be added on top.
Workflow checks that PRs are made only when current version ends with -dev
If this fails, a commit bumping the version to -dev should be pushed to main branch.
This avoids creating 1:1 chat on a second device when joining a channel.
Now when joining a channel there may be no 1:1 chat with the inviter
when the channel is created. In this case we still create the channel
as unblocked even if 1:1 chat would be a contact request
because joining the channel is an explicit action
and it is not possible to add someone who did not scan a QR
to the channel manually.
We don't want to send an outgoing message from the 2nd device (`ac1_clone`) before receiving the
incoming one and expect that the messages will be ordered correctly on the 1st device (`ac1`). Let's
ensure the correct message order locally in the first place. I checked logs of a failed test run and
it indeed happened that `ac1_clone` sent the message earlier, so it can't reference the incoming
message and `tweak_sort_timestamp()` does nothing on `ac1`, so the messages can't be ordered
correctly considering that smeared clocks on the devices are diferent.
The part of logic there adjusting the sort timestamp forward if the parent message has a greater
sort timestamp wasn't tested explicitly by any test. I only saw one unrelated "golden test" failure
when commented it out.
(Related to #8027)
Fix https://github.com/chatmail/core/issues/8042
The problem was that after receiving the bcc_self'ed pre-message in
`receive_imf`, the logic there only looked for a pending
`smtp`-table-entry that matches the rfc724_mid, and if there was none
then it thought "Great, apparently the message is fully sent out, we can
mark it as delivered!".
But with pre-messages, the same message can have two `smtp` entries (one
for the pre-message and one for the post-message), and the message
should only be marked as delivered once both of them are sent out.
Now, I changed the logic to look for all entries with the same msg_id.
This is actually the same SQL query used in smtp.rs, so, I extracted it
into a new function; feel free to suggest a better name for it.
I tested on Android that it now works fine.
I'll add a test in a follow-up PR.
There are a lot of other problems with sending large files, though:
- The pre-message is sent before the post-message, so that for the
receiver it looks as if the message arrived, but stays in
"downloading..." forever
- There is quite a time delay between clicking on "Send" and the
outgoing message appearing in the chat
- The message shortly gets a letter icon right after it is sent
- I'm wondering if there is a way to give feedback to the user
immediately if the message is too big
- It's unclear when exactly we want to send read receipts
I'll open a follow-up issue for these.
This is to avoid sorting incoming messages that
are slightly in the past above system messages
about SecureJoin. SecureJoin messages are
timed according to smeared timestamp,
so even in the local tests they are in the future
by a few seconds.
We set timestamp of this info message to 0
to make it always appear in the beginning of the chat.
To avoid new chats being sorted to the end of the chatlist,
we ignore such 0 and use chat creation timestamp
when sorting the chatlist.
We know which message was added from the return value
of receive_imf(). It may be that the first chat
in the chatlist is not the one where the message was received
if there is a pinned chat or if
just received message is old.
It is not clear now what this is testing.
Golden test shows messages ordered
incorrectly according to the timestamps,
they should be ordered the other way round.
Comment talks about fetching from mvbox and inbox
in paralell which is a rare case that
could have happened if one message is left in the inbox
and the other message is a chat message moved to mvbox.
We never download anything that is not moved to the target folder.
The test also resides in "verified chats" tests
which are all legacy tests we kept after
replacing the concept of verified/protected chats
with key contacts in 2.x.
If our key is gossiped, the message is intended for us.
The check for address is redundant for incoming messages as
if we received the message then it was addressed to us.
This whole protection code can eventually be removed
as we have intended recipient fingerprints already,
it only protects against forwarding of messages
sent by old clients.
