| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There's no good reason to use an empty string as your login name, or to use one so long as to annoy others. Names beginning or ending with whitespace, or containing runs of whitespace, are also a technical problem, so they're also prohibited.
This change does not implement [UTS #39], as I haven't yet fully understood how to do so.
[UTS #39]: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This normalizes the following values:
* login names
* passwords
* channel names
* message bodies, because why not
The goal here is to have a canonical representation of these values, so that, for example, the service does not inadvertently host two channels whose names are semantically identical but differ in the specifics of how diacritics are encoded, or two users whose names are identical.
Normalization is done on input from the wire, using Serde hooks, and when reading from the database. The `crate::nfc::String` type implements these normalizations (as well as normalizing whenever converted from a `std::string::String` generally).
This change does not cover:
* Trying to cope with passwords that were created as non-normalized strings, which are now non-verifiable as all the paths to verify passwords normalize the input.
* Trying to ensure that non-normalized data in the database compares reasonably to normalized data. Fortunately, we don't _do_ very many string comparisons (I think only login names), so this isn't a huge deal at this stage. Login names will probably have to Get Fixed later on, when we figure out how to handle case folding for login name verification.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In general:
* If the client can only assume the response is immediately valid (mostly, login creation, where the client cannot monitor the event stream), then 200 Okay, with data describing the server's view of the request.
* If the client can monitor for completion by watching the event stream, then 202 Accepted, with data describing the server's view of the request.
This comes on the heels of a comment I made on Discord:
> hrm
>
> creating a login: 204 No Content, no body
> sending a message: 202 Accepted, no body
> creating a channel: 200 Okay, has a body
>
> past me, what were you on
There wasn't any principled reason for this inconsistency; it happened as the endpoints were written at different times and with different states of mind.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This is mostly a how-to-Svelte thing.
I've also made the API responses for invites a bit more caller-friendly by flattening them and adding the ID field into them. The ID is redundant (the client knows it because the client has the invitation URL), but it makes presenting invitations and actioning them a bit easier.
|
|
|
Having the whole API in a single file was starting to feel very cramped and constraining. This rewrite breaks it out into sections; as a side effect, the docs are now about 2.5x as long as they were, as the rewrite allows more space for each idea without crowding the page.
The docs are best read by running `tools/docs-api`.
|
