It is possible for an earlier Update to be received by us later.
For this, we now
(1) only allows Updates to poll counts if there is no updated field,
or the updated field is the same as the last updated date or
creation date;
(2) does not allow updating anything if the updated field
is older than the last updated date or creation date;
(3) allows updating updatable fields otherwise (normal updates);
(4) if only the updated field is changed, it does not create
a new history item on its own.
In Create validator we do not validate the object data,
but that is because the object itself will go through the
pipeline again, which is not the case for Update. Thus,
we added validation for objects in Update activities.
I renamed some tags before, but forgot to rename the pipelines
I also had some tags which I forgot to add to the config, description, etc.
These have now been done/added
The previous pictures were labeled as public domain, but are actually a collage of pictures under other licenses.
I now replaced them with a jpeg of simply a white pixel.
I used keyword_list[:key], but if the key doesn't exist, it will return nil. I actually expect a list and further down the code I use that list.
I believe the key should always be present, but in case it's not, it's better to return an empty list instead of nil. That way the code wont fail further down the line.
During attachment upload Pleroma returns a "description" field. Pleroma-fe has an MR to use that to pre-fill the image description field, <https://git.pleroma.social/pleroma/pleroma-fe/-/merge_requests/1399>
* This MR allows Pleroma to read the EXIF data during upload and return the description to the FE
* If a description is already present (e.g. because a previous module added it), it will use that
* Otherwise it will read from the EXIF data. First it will check -ImageDescription, if that's empty, it will check -iptc:Caption-Abstract
* If no description is found, it will simply return nil, just like before
* When people set up a new instance, they will be asked if they want to read metadata and this module will be activated if so
This was taken from an MR i did on Pleroma and isn't finished yet.
I first focussed on getting things working
Now that they do and we know what tags there are, I put some thought in providing better names
I use the form <what_it_controls>_<what_it_allows_you_to_do>
:statuses_read => :messages_read
:status_delete => :messages_delete
:user_read => :users_read
:user_deletion => :users_delete
:user_activation => :users_manage_activation_state
:user_invite => :users_manage_invites
:user_tag => :users_manage_tags
:user_credentials => :users_manage_credentials
:report_handle => :reports_manage_reports
:emoji_management => :emoji_manage_emoji
Tries fully-qualifying emoji when receiving them, by adding the emoji
variation sequence to the received reaction emoji.
This issue arises when other instance software, such as Misskey, tries
reacting with emoji that have unqualified or minimally qualified
variants, like a red heart. Pleroma only accepts fully qualified emoji
in emoji reactions, and refused those emoji. Now, Pleroma will attempt
to properly qualify them first, and reject them if checks still fail.
Deactivated users are only visible to users privileged with :user_activation since fc317f3b17
Here we also make sure the users who are deactivated get the status deactivated for users who are allowed to see these users
Instead of `Pleroma.User.all_superusers()` we now use `Pleroma.User.all_superusers(:report_handle)`
I also changed it for sending emails, but there were no tests.
