In Create validator we do not validate the object data,
but that is because the object itself will go through the
pipeline again, which is not the case for Update. Thus,
we added validation for objects in Update activities.
I first focussed on getting things working
Now that they do and we know what tags there are, I put some thought in providing better names
I use the form <what_it_controls>_<what_it_allows_you_to_do>
:statuses_read => :messages_read
:status_delete => :messages_delete
:user_read => :users_read
:user_deletion => :users_delete
:user_activation => :users_manage_activation_state
:user_invite => :users_manage_invites
:user_tag => :users_manage_tags
:user_credentials => :users_manage_credentials
:report_handle => :reports_manage_reports
:emoji_management => :emoji_manage_emoji
Tries fully-qualifying emoji when receiving them, by adding the emoji
variation sequence to the received reaction emoji.
This issue arises when other instance software, such as Misskey, tries
reacting with emoji that have unqualified or minimally qualified
variants, like a red heart. Pleroma only accepts fully qualified emoji
in emoji reactions, and refused those emoji. Now, Pleroma will attempt
to properly qualify them first, and reject them if checks still fail.
Instead of `Pleroma.User.all_superusers()` we now use `Pleroma.User.all_superusers(:report_handle)`
I also changed it for sending emails, but there were no tests.
* rejected_shortcodes is defined as a list of strings in the
configuration description. As such, database-based configuration was
led to handle those settings as strings, and not as the actually
expected type, Regex.
* This caused each message passing through this MRF, if a rejected
shortcode was set and the emoji did not exist already on the instance,
to fail federating, as an exception was raised, swiftly caught and
mostly silenced.
* This commit fixes the issue by introducing new behavior: strings are
now handled as perfect matches for an emoji shortcode (meaning that if
the emoji-to-be-pulled's shortcode is in the blacklist, it will be
rejected), while still supporting Regex types as before.
Even though latest PleromaFE supports displaying these properly, mobile
apps still exist, so I think we should offer a workaround to those who
want it.
Mastodon uses the Reject activity also for the purpose of removing
a follower, in addition to reject a follow request. We should
also update the original Follow activity in this case.
Notes:
- QuestionValidator didn't have a :name field but that seems like a mistake
- `_fields` functions can't inherit others because of some Validators
- bto/bcc fields were absent in activities, also seems like a mistake
(Well IIRC we don't or barely support bto/bcc anyway)
* Policies were put under a new module (Pleroma.Web.ActivityPub.MRF.Policy instead of Pleroma.Web.ActivityPub.MRF), but this wasn't changed in the Pleroma.Web.ActivityPub.MRF @mrf_config_descriptions
* I don't have a unit test to prevent similar problems in the future because I don't find a proper way to do it
* The descriptions in the unit tests are defined in the unit tests, so if someone changes module names in the code, the tests wont see it
* The list is generated in Pleroma.Docs.Generator.list_behaviour_implementations, but I can't do a check in the when clause of the function to see if the provided module is a behaviour or not.
Backport of: https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma/-/merge_requests/3509
* Policies were put under a new module (Pleroma.Web.ActivityPub.MRF.Policy instead of Pleroma.Web.ActivityPub.MRF), but this wasn't changed in the Pleroma.Web.ActivityPub.MRF @mrf_config_descriptions
* I don't have a unit test to prevent similar problems in the future because I don't find a proper way to do it
* The descriptions in the unit tests are defined in the unit tests, so if someone changes module names in the code, the tests wont see it
* The list is generated in Pleroma.Docs.Generator.list_behaviour_implementations, but I can't do a check in the when clause of the function to see if the provided module is a behaviour or not.
* I also added for keywordpolicy as well now. It was done in the admin-fe, but is better to be done here
* I also added comments to explain why we did the _info keys (backwards compatibility)
It's easiest (and imo most proper) to use tuples {"instance, "reason"} in BE,
but for FE maps like %{"instance": "instance", "reason", "reason"} are better.
I changed it so that node_info returns maps now for simple_policy and quarantined instances.
Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier