Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.

Faster remote room joins: add an error code to /members when in partial state #14587

Open
MatMaul opened this issue Nov 30, 2022 · 4 comments
Open
Labels
A-Federated-Join joins over federation generally suck O-Occasional Affects or can be seen by some users regularly or most users rarely S-Tolerable Minor significance, cosmetic issues, low or no impact to users. T-Enhancement New features, changes in functionality, improvements in performance, or user-facing enhancements.

Comments

@MatMaul
Copy link
Contributor

MatMaul commented Nov 30, 2022

For now the request is just stalled until the join completes, which is not ideal since clients are not aware of what is happening.

This requires a MSC to define the error code.
For backward compatibility we also probably need to add a parameter to /members so that the client can opt-in to the specific error code.
Or perhaps returning a 5xx is enough ? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9794696/which-http-status-code-means-not-ready-yet-try-again-later has several suggestions on that subject.

@MatMaul MatMaul added A-Federated-Join joins over federation generally suck S-Tolerable Minor significance, cosmetic issues, low or no impact to users. labels Nov 30, 2022
@MatMaul MatMaul added T-Enhancement New features, changes in functionality, improvements in performance, or user-facing enhancements. O-Occasional Affects or can be seen by some users regularly or most users rarely labels Nov 30, 2022
@DMRobertson
Copy link
Contributor

Note that Olivier has proposed a return code for federation APIs: matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#3895

@erikjohnston
Copy link
Member

Is this something we've decided we want to do? From a backwards compatibility PoV it feels a bit tricky to do well.

@MatMaul
Copy link
Contributor Author

MatMaul commented Dec 9, 2022

It's more an idea than a decision.

For backwards compatibility we could either introduce a parameter for that, or consider that clients should be able to retry on 5xx and use that.

First approach should be on the safe side I believe ?

@erikjohnston
Copy link
Member

I think we decided to drop this for now, and see if there was a use case for it?

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
A-Federated-Join joins over federation generally suck O-Occasional Affects or can be seen by some users regularly or most users rarely S-Tolerable Minor significance, cosmetic issues, low or no impact to users. T-Enhancement New features, changes in functionality, improvements in performance, or user-facing enhancements.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants