Skip to content

OK Fedifriends, I need your help with some complex ActivityPub stuff.

Uncategorized
14 6 59

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    box464@mastodon.social we're thrilled to have been funded for another round! There's a lot we want to accomplish and we'll be working on our milestone list in the coming weeks. Context discovery is just one exciting thing we have planned!
  • 0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social but as:Public is not a dereferenceable URL. Needs to be special cased anyway. End of the day nothing changes, it needs special handling for all the cases anyway. cc silverpill@mitra.social
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    97 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > One weakness I have noticed in NodeBB's current federation is that posts which are in reply to a topic (e.g. a Lemmy comment) show up as individual threads until (or if) the root post of that topic shows up in the local NodeBB. No, Lemmy does not implement either strategy, they rely on 1b12 only. If NodeBB is receiving parts of a topic that don't resolve up to the root-level post that might be something we can fix. I'll try to take a look at it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I suppose you're right in a way. The context owner is not supposed to be set by someone other than the context owner. It's a fallback mechanism intended for better compatibility with Mastodon. When a group is addressed and it is one of the local NodeBB categories, it will assume control If it is another group that it knows about but isn't same origin to the author, then no category is assumed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    149 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de
  • 1 Stimmen
    116 Beiträge
    771 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @willi@social.tchncs.de a VPS can be had from DigitalOcean or Vultr quite economically (although I know that isn't always the case in some countries) You can also use our referral link for an account credit too!
  • ActivityPub for forums looks neat!

    Uncategorized activitypub federation discourse fediverse
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    55 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    NodeBB is gearing up for a major release this month that brings full two way federation and content discoverability to forums as well! We've been working on it all last year! @activitypub
  • Test Post for @julian

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    83 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331