Allow post creation from Friendica #2144
Comments
|
This activity creates an For reference, here is the activity properly formatted: |
Nutomic
added
area: federation
Nutomic
changed the title
|
I asked the friendica devs to have a look on this issue |
|
Also, is |
|
Currently Friendica uses either On my test system I just tested a post with |
|
We could switch from @annando It also needs another change which is not merged yet. Try with ds9.lemmy.ml, that has a fixed version which should federate fine. Also, it would be good if you could send a list of all activitypub objects/activities sent by Friendica, so that i can add support for all of them at once. |
|
We adopted @annando We don't have any platform-specific code in GNU social, and would like to avoid having to, but we will add the instrument property to our activities when federating out. For reference: |
|
Okay so it seems the best solution for Lemmy is to accept receiving both |
|
@diogogithub we don't have any platform specific code in Friendica either - and we really want to avoid that as well. But I see it like with the "Nodeinfo" mechanism. It is nice to know each other. Concerning the differences between the two types: AFAIK all these fields can be used for both types, so we are safe here. @Nutomic accepting both |
|
@Nutomic with manually set the type to |
|
@annando Great! Could you please send json of your activitypub objects and activities? Basically whats in the link below, for inclusion in our tests. Dont make a PR, as it needs code changes as well. Once i have that, i will make the necessary changes. https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/tree/main/crates/apub/assets |
|
Here is an Here is a This is a comment with the type A
And here is an
|
|
@Nutomic just some additional information: I'm currently preparing a change in Friendica so that posts that contain an external url will be a The difference between Also there is one significant difference between those two types: On an |
|
@annando Perfect, thank you! All I had to change was accept
This is strange for me. We already show a link which points to the post's original instance (based on the id field). You can for example see it on this page (the colored fediverse icon). I dont see any reason to (ab)use the url field to send this url a second time. Current behaviour will be that such articles will have the content rendered in Lemmy, and also have the title link to Friendica, so there are two ways to read the same text which might be confusing. To avoid this, we would have to ignore the url field for all articles, which seems strange (and would cause problems for other software that tries to create an article with url). Edit: one more thing, for private messages we use Pleromas ChatMessage extension. Do you support that? |
|
We currently don't support the chat messages. But this sounds interesting. Concerning this Since we also have got a look at the requested content types we always return the requested content (either the JSON content or the HTML content). But there are systems out there that always return the JSON content at their The best way to cope with this is indeed to have different treatments for the different types. The easiest solution for Lemmy surely would be to simply drop the content of the |
|
We could do that, but it would lead to very unexpected behaviour if some other software tries to create an I think the real problem here is that we are using a single field for two different purposes. One, in Lemmy the |
|
From my point of view the Best would be that for |
|
Maybe that makes sense from Friendica perspective. But for Lemmy the only change i made is that So i'm not really sure what to do. I think its worth discussing this with other project devs as well, before making any decision (maybe on socialhub). |
|
I guess it would be best if Lemmy in the future does send the posts without some external link as an I don't know about Lemmy's release cycle. Possible it does make sense to just allow Can you add the link her, if you start a discussion on Socialhub about this topic? I'm not very active there. |
|
Okay, I guess there are a couple of different issues on the table...
Although this makes sense. Because of this:
GNU social is using the On the other hand, we had a Bookmarks plugin in version 2, that isn't federating via ActivityPub yet. The way we had thought of federating it was with a details html element in the Something like: ...
"type": "Page",
"title": "The title of this post about GNU",
"content": "<details><summary>Some briefing of what I'm sharing about GNU</summary>Let me elaborate more on my thoughts</details>",
"mediaType": "text/html"
"source": {
"content": "http://gnu.org\r\n",
"mediaType": "text/uri-list"
}
...Nonetheless, I agree that moving this to SocialHub would be a good idea. |
|
I don't think the source field is correct for that either, since it's specified as "source from which the content markup was derived" which it wouldn't be if the user is adding their own comments Maybe a Link in |
|
@diogogithub like @vpzomtrrfrt suggested, I think that an |
|
@vpzomtrrfrt and @annando I agree. The main reason why we wrote that draft idea I shared, was because we didn't want to parse the content of type ...
"type": "Page",
"title": "The title of this post about GNU",
"content": "<details><summary>Some briefing of what I'm sharing about GNU</summary>Let me elaborate more on my thoughts</details>",
"mediaType": "text/html"
"source": {
"content": "Bookmark: http://gnu.org
Summary: Some briefing of what I'm sharing about GNU
Description: Let me elaborate more on my thoughts",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
"attachment": [
{
"url": "http://gnu.org",
"type": "Document",
"mediaType": "text/html"
}
]
... |
|
Started a SocialHub thread to further discuss the semantics of link posts: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/explicitly-attached-links/2357 |
|
Hi, I really feel that being able to create new topics from remote instances would be a game changer. Putting Mastodon is the game would really help. Do you have a specific issue to track federation with Mastodon ? My understanding at this point is that mastodon only sends Notes, missing a title. One workaround would be to consider the first sentence of a Note as title. In any case, a federated user sending a bad request (bad type of message, bad format, anything) should be informed it has failed and why : maybe with a private message to him ? Anyway, thanks for this amazing work ! |
|
@raphaeljolivet Thats completely offtopic, open a new issue or use the search function. |
Found a bug? Please fill out the sections below. 👍
For front end issues, use lemmy-ui
Issue Summary
Posting a NEW posting from friendica in a lemmy-community fails
I think, it's similar to the friendica-federation bug a few weeks ago for commenting. The error-message seems the same.
Steps to Reproduce
Technical details
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: