Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 11, 2024. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@dbkr
Copy link
Member

@dbkr dbkr commented Jan 21, 2021

The accompanying element-web PR with the config documentation should
explain what this is & why. Internally, this breaks the assumption
that call.roomId is the room that the call appears in for the user.
call.roomId may now be a 'virtual' room while the react SDK actually
displays it in a different room. React SDK always stores the calls
under the user-facing rooms, and provides a function to get the
user-facing room for a given call.

The accompanying element-web PR with the config documentation should
explain what this is & why. Internally, this breaks the assumption
that call.roomId is the room that the call appears in for the user.
call.roomId may now be a 'virtual' room while the react SDK actually
displays it in a different room. React SDK always stores the calls
under the user-facing rooms, and provides a function to get the
user-facing room for a given call.
Copy link
Collaborator

@jryans jryans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall looks good, just curious about the configuration.

default: null,
},
"voip_mxid_translate_pattern": {
supportedLevels: LEVELS_UI_FEATURE, // not a UI feature, but same level (config only, maybe .well-known in future)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, reusing it for a non-UI feature seems a bit strange to me... Is there a reason you want it to participate in the settings system? For config-only things, we've typically just read it out of the config directly with SdkConfig.get().thing. Your docs PR also suggests its not part of "settings", but just floating in the config sea.

Copy link
Member Author

@dbkr dbkr Jan 22, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh, good point - I did originally have it as a setting but then realised exactly what you've pointed out, and failed to remove the settings entry - good spot.

@dbkr
Copy link
Member Author

dbkr commented Jan 22, 2021

Also hope this is the intended way to use the VisibilityProvider

@dbkr dbkr requested a review from jryans January 22, 2021 11:08
@jryans
Copy link
Collaborator

jryans commented Jan 22, 2021

Also hope this is the intended way to use the VisibilityProvider

Seems reasonable enough to me at least... 😄

@dbkr dbkr merged commit f703383 into develop Jan 22, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants