Skip to content

A question for #Fediverse devs: I'm thinking about better ways to document development of the #ActivityPub stack.

Uncategorized
5 3 23

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 7.2.0 – Follow ups

    Uncategorized activitypub blocks fediverse followers following
    2
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    pfefferle@mastodon.social oh interesting! > We’ve also made it easier to follow people from other sites. When you click “Follow” on someone else’s blog, you’ll now be taken to your own site to complete it. It keeps things simple and familiar, even when you start following someone from another site. How do you know the user pressing the button has a WordPress site?
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    benpate@mastodon.social honestly whatever you ramble on about is always a good show. Stoked you're presenting!
  • FEP-9098: Custom emojis has been published.

    Uncategorized activitypub fep
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    silverpill@mitra.social I thought the plural of Emoji was Emoji
  • Communities not existing on all instances is a big problem.

    Fediverse fediverse
    23
    0 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Yes. When the reply is posted to C, it is sent to A. A then sends as:Announce to C, as well as any other communities that follow it. B seems to be irrelevant here.
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    89 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.
  • Just for fun...

    Uncategorized activitypub
    4
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    steve@social.technoetic.com only 19/20, I am disappoint. [image: 1752346993311-1000010307.png]
  • 0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    melroy@kbin.melroy.org oh sorry to hear that hopefully Dan hasn't moved on from FediDB already.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    176 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