This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Implement MSC4009 to widen the allowed Matrix ID grammar #15536
Implement MSC4009 to widen the allowed Matrix ID grammar #15536
Changes from 1 commit
56bf7a9
2aaa580
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hah, can't believe this is how we defined the grammar for guest localparts. Goodness help us if Python allowed things like
0x42
inint()
!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did try
int("+3")
in a Python shell after seeing that 👼There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It did not, but it did allow things like
042
. The new behavior should match that.It did also allow
+42
and-42
those will no longer be allowed.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The SSO mapping code (done via the
map_username_to_mxid_localpart
) doesn't really support this though, so maybe we should hard-code the calls in this file toFalse
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that we don't need to worry about changing a currently registered user's mapping since we find those users via their remote ID.
Changing the mapping could, however, cause conflicts where there didn't used to be one.