Skip to content

As someone who has developed several #ActivityPub software implementations ([Fedify], [Hollo], [BotKit], and [Hackers' Pub]), I believe one of the most frustrating features to implement in the #fediverse is #custom_emoji.

Uncategorized
43 9 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    61 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    renchap@oisaur.com edent@mastodon.social as it should, as the followers collection can be gamed and should not be trusted.
  • Missing project?

    Uncategorized fediverse
    11
    0 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    58 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    m_f@discuss.online not directly, but there was a session at FediForum on Thursday that discussed the website and next steps for updating it. It's been stagnant for quite awhile but evan@cosocial.ca and j12t@j12t.social finally have write access to the repo and control of the domain.
  • Fun with Federation: Lemmy edition

    ActivityPub nodebb lemmy activitypub
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    nutomic@lemmy.ml let me know if I got any of the details wrong. Much thanks to your team for the assist in debugging!
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    66 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.
  • Pleroma Webfinger compatibility

    ActivityPub activitypub pleroma webfinger
    10
    0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    90 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    153 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
  • Post flair in PieFed

    Fediverse fediverse
    4
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I think the FEP process is overly complicated for what it is, but it's definitely helpful if you have multiple implementors on board. The easiest (but least accessible) solution is to document something on your own site, but that lacks the social proof that a finalized FEP has. Just some food for thought I'm looking to create an FEP for cross posting and would love to get the entire threadiverse dev community involved.
  • 1 Stimmen
    116 Beiträge
    814 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!