Skip to content

Make restricted room join tests clearer #752

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

morguldir
Copy link

Firstly this PR makes the tests work on more implementations, for example ruma and GMS won't really understand join_authorised_via_users_server not looking like a user id, similar to what #224 tried to do

Making it a user id that isn't correct still makes sure that the server can handle clients updating the member event directly with /myroomnick or similar

Some errors were also silently being ignored, which made it harder to tell which part of the test was actually failing

Pull Request Checklist

@morguldir morguldir requested review from a team as code owners December 31, 2024 06:52
// This should be ignored since this is a join -> join transition.
"join_authorised_via_users_server": "unused",
// This should be ignored by the server since this is a join -> join transition
"join_authorised_via_users_server": "@unused:unused.local",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What happens if a ruma-based server gets garbage here then? Does it still work?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It can create the event then, but it won’t really work properly unless the server removes the field when handling the PUT like synapse does

So when verifying the signature of a federation event actually looking like that it won’t work still

This part i think is intended though, although seemingly synapse changed that behaviour at some point too 🧐

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not really following your comment, sorry. Shouldn't the field be removed no matter what? So what isn't working for ruma?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry yeah it should, but if another server forgets to remove it, then ruma still tries to check the signature, but synapse seems to still allow the event

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Irrespective of the behaviour of Synapse and Ruma, this field should either be set to a valid structure for this field (a Matrix ID), or it should explicitly call out that this field is set to an invalid value on purpose.

As the latter does not appear the case, I agree with this change. However I'm not opposed to another test that checks homeservers correctly handle invalid content in this field.


return ev.Get("content").Get("membership").Str == "leave"
}))

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a duplicate of the stuff underneath? Why add this?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It makes sure the leave worked in both rooms now

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wouldn't this break if a single sync contained both leaves?

MustSyncUntil supports multiple SyncCheckOpt instances, so you can provide two functions that verify that bob has left the rooms in question.

You can also replace SyncTimelineHas with SyncLeftFrom to save yourself the manual event content checking.

Copy link
Member

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor request, otherwise LGTM!

Edit: also could you please fix the git conflict.


return ev.Get("content").Get("membership").Str == "leave"
}))

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wouldn't this break if a single sync contained both leaves?

MustSyncUntil supports multiple SyncCheckOpt instances, so you can provide two functions that verify that bob has left the rooms in question.

You can also replace SyncTimelineHas with SyncLeftFrom to save yourself the manual event content checking.

// This should be ignored since this is a join -> join transition.
"join_authorised_via_users_server": "unused",
// This should be ignored by the server since this is a join -> join transition
"join_authorised_via_users_server": "@unused:unused.local",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Irrespective of the behaviour of Synapse and Ruma, this field should either be set to a valid structure for this field (a Matrix ID), or it should explicitly call out that this field is set to an invalid value on purpose.

As the latter does not appear the case, I agree with this change. However I'm not opposed to another test that checks homeservers correctly handle invalid content in this field.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants