It used a timer to sleep.
But time also goes on when doing other things, so depending on hardware, the timings could be off.
I slightly changed the tests so we still test what we functionally want.
Instead of waiting until the cache expires I now have a function to expire the test and use that.
That means we're not testing any more if the cache really expires after a certain amount of time,
but that's the responsability of the dependency imo, so shouldn't be a problem.
I also changed `Pleroma.Web.Endpoint, :http, :ip` to `127.0.0.1` because that's the setting people typically have,
and I see no reason to do it differently.
Especially since it's an exernal ip, which may come over as weird or suspicious to people.
It is possible for an earlier Update to be received by us later.
For this, we now
(1) only allows Updates to poll counts if there is no updated field,
or the updated field is the same as the last updated date or
creation date;
(2) does not allow updating anything if the updated field
is older than the last updated date or creation date;
(3) allows updating updatable fields otherwise (normal updates);
(4) if only the updated field is changed, it does not create
a new history item on its own.
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.
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.
* 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.
It retrieved two ReportNotes and then checked one of them. But the order isn't guaranteed, while the test tested on the content of the first ReportNote.
I made the test on the content more generic
elixir gettext current does not fully support fallback to another language [0].
But it might in the future. We adapt it so that all languages in Accept-Language
headers are received by Pleroma.Web.Gettext. User.languages is now a comma-separated
list.
[0]: https://github.com/elixir-gettext/gettext/issues/303
For an example, here, zh is not supported, but zh_Hans and zh_Hant
are. If the user asks for zh, we should choose a variant for them
instead of fallbacking to default.
Some browsers (e.g. Firefox) does not allow users to customize
their language codes. For example, there is no zh-Hans, but only
zh, zh-CN, zh-TW, zh-HK, etc. This provides a workaround for
those users suffering from bad design decisions.
For some reason I had a test who suddenly failed, mix test test/pleroma/web/o_auth/app_test.exs:54. A user has a list of applications and this test adds them and then sees if the list it gets back is the same as the apps it added.
When I ran mix test a day before I didn't have this problem and when I pushed code today in a different MR, the pipeline succeeded (see https://git.pleroma.social/ilja/pleroma/-/jobs/205827), yet locally it failed. So it seems the test can sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, which makes it untrustworthy.
The failure I see is because the returned list is in reverse order. I assume that's not per sé wrong. You just want to know if the apps you added are actually there. I fixed the test by first ordering the lists before comparing.
AFAICT (and as far as that's relevant) the test got introduced in commit cb2a072e62
Tusooa Zhu