Created attachment 127081 [details] [review] Add disco NS to the capability list XEP-0030 §3.1 “Note: Every entity MUST […] support at least the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info' feature” And with a patch attached!
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.