| Summary: | Make disco#info advertise disco#info feature | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Telepathy | Reporter: | Maxime Buquet <maxime.buquet> |
| Component: | gabble | Assignee: | Telepathy bugs list <telepathy-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Telepathy bugs list <telepathy-bugs> |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | medium | CC: | bugs |
| Version: | git master | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
| Attachments: |
Add disco NS to the capability list
signature.asc |
||
|
Description
Maxime Buquet
2016-10-06 20:53:57 UTC
two things shouldn't the URL be: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html#info-basic And a different question is, MUST every entity advertise that it supports disco#info? I used telepathy-gabble-xmpp-console and checked some of my XMPP clients. Debian's gabble 0.18.3-2+b1 doesn't advertise disco#info, Gajim 0.16.5-2 and Conversations 1.14 something (not sure which device I browsed) does report disco#info support. Did you check if it disco#info shows up after applying the patch? On 2016/10/06, bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org wrote: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98127 > > --- Comment #1 from diane@ghic.org --- > two things shouldn't the URL be: > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html#info-basic No, namespace URIs don't use XEP addresses, take a look at the first paragraph after Example 1 > Debian's gabble 0.18.3-2+b1 doesn't advertise disco#info, Gajim 0.16.5-2 and > Conversations 1.14 something (not sure which device I browsed) does report > disco#info support. > > Did you check if it disco#info shows up after applying the patch? Debian's gabble doesn't advertise it, that's why I'm sending a patch! Oops I got confused about the URL I thought you were linking to the documentation not the namespace. +1 looks good to me. My testing was: * add it as a patch to the Debian package of 0.18.3 and verifying that indeed a disco#info request did report that gabble supported disco#info * Apply it to my proposed-updates branch with several unit test fixes and run the unit tests. I had one test failure tls/server-tls-channel.py regardless of whether or not this patch was applied. I asked on the xmpp jdev MUC if including disco#info was required and got back this response. "yes, it’s explicitly required in XEP-0030, but I remember some clients forgot to do so so you shouldn’t consider its absence as a sign the client doesn’t support it." So what branch should we be submitting code to? (In reply to diane from comment #4) > "yes, it’s explicitly required in XEP-0030, but I remember some clients > forgot to do so so you shouldn’t consider its absence as a sign the client > doesn’t support it." Funny that the rest of the examples on the XEP do not include it... > So what branch should we be submitting code to? The stable branch, telepathy-gabble-0.18 I have committed it now. Created attachment 127254 [details] signature.asc > > So what branch should we be submitting code to? > > The stable branch, telepathy-gabble-0.18 > > I have committed it now. Thanks! |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.