Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify the order of messages for "read up to" receipts #1503

Closed
andybalaam opened this issue Apr 27, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Clarify the order of messages for "read up to" receipts #1503

andybalaam opened this issue Apr 27, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
clarification An area where the expected behaviour is understood, but the spec could do with being more explicit

Comments

@andybalaam
Copy link
Member

Link to problem area: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#receipts

Issue
Under "Receipts" and probably in other places, we refer the order of messages. For example, the referenced section:

To prevent this from becoming a problem, receipts are implemented using “up to” markers. This marker indicates that the acknowledgement applies to all events “up to and including” the event specified.

It is not clear what ordering is being used when talking about reading up to a point.

I am aware that there are ideas of stream ordering and topological ordering but I can't find a definition of these terms, and I don't see a reference to which ordering is used for receipts.
@andybalaam andybalaam added the clarification An area where the expected behaviour is understood, but the spec could do with being more explicit label Apr 27, 2023
@andybalaam andybalaam mentioned this issue Apr 27, 2023
Open
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Apr 27, 2023

related: #125

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Apr 27, 2023

oh, and #1334

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Apr 27, 2023

actually this might be a duplicate of #1167

@andybalaam
Copy link
Member Author

Yep, duplicate of #1167

@andybalaam andybalaam reopened this Apr 27, 2023
@andybalaam
Copy link
Member Author

andybalaam commented Apr 27, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Duplicate of #1167

@andybalaam andybalaam closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Apr 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
clarification An area where the expected behaviour is understood, but the spec could do with being more explicit
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@andybalaam @richvdh