Update matrix-rust-sdk to 0.17.0#79
Conversation
poljar
force-pushed
the
poljar/bump-sdk
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5b7efd8 to
1b378bd
Compare
| /docs/* | ||
| /target | ||
| *.tgz | ||
| yarn.lock |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yarn.lock probably wants committing, not ignoring?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, can add it instead of ignoring it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Err, should I then remove the package-lock.json file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh. We should decide if we're using yarn or npm, and stick to it.
| let to_device_events: Vec<_> = | ||
| to_device_events.into_iter().map(|event| event.to_raw()).collect(); | ||
|
|
||
| serde_json::to_string(&(to_device_events, room_key_info)).map_err(into_err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could you update the doc-comment to reflect what is now returned?
(Also, is returning a json-encoded array really the best thing to do?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All I'm doing here is ensuring that we're returning what we were returning prior to the version bump.
Unless you wanted me to also change what we're returning?
(Also, is returning a json-encoded array really the best thing to do?)
It's actually an array of arrays, probably not, but that's probably a topic for a different PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All I'm doing here is ensuring that we're returning what we were returning prior to the version bump.
Sounds like the doc was wrong before the version bump, then? Sigh. Would you mind patching it up while we're in the area?
It's actually an array of arrays, probably not, but that's probably a topic for a different PR.
agreed, let's leave it alone.
| AlgorithmInfo::MegolmV1AesSha2 { curve25519_key, .. } => curve25519_key.clone(), | ||
| AlgorithmInfo::OlmV1Curve25519AesSha2 { curve25519_public_key_base64 } => { | ||
| curve25519_public_key_base64.clone() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is kindof a nonsense for a room key. In crypto-wasm, we handle it by erroring when we build the DecryptedRoomEvent struct. Is there something similar we could do here?
At the very least, can we add a comment here saying that this is a nonsensical situation?
2 participants
No description provided.