Skip to content

NodeBB v4.0.0 — Federate good times, come on!

Uncategorized
116 66 939

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    smallcircles@social.coop if you're not able to consume dev discussions on the fediverse and have to continually rely on people creating content on your platform then you need to raise that as an issue on your platform software.
  • Here's an idea.

    Uncategorized activitypub
    7
    0 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    benpate@mastodon.social Emissary interested? Har Har Har
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    125 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.
  • Just for fun...

    Uncategorized activitypub
    4
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    steve@social.technoetic.com only 19/20, I am disappoint. [image: 1752346993311-1000010307.png]
  • Pleroma Webfinger compatibility

    ActivityPub activitypub pleroma webfinger
    10
    0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    103 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
    170 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
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    90 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Kommt echt an Ich bin verblüfft LOL
  • 0 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Paweł said in Native Push Notifications Support for NodeBB: > julian maybe it is worth to check this behavior in Browserstack? Yes, this is a good idea does browser stack have support for push notifications?