Conversation
|
Rather than adding more numerics can we just require that it gets batched? |
|
Yeah, that would be a cleaner solution. I wonder if this would be hard for older servers to implement? |
b098736 to
5b75839
Compare
|
Switched to a batch. Does this look good? |
57e7f21 to
a8eb127
Compare
a8eb127 to
0375eea
Compare
|
Could you mention that:
|
Not sure how to phrase this. Maybe:
But maybe you want something more precise?
It's in modern: https://modern.ircdocs.horse/#rplisupport-005 |
Also worth noting that Modern gets it from from the original IETF draft isupport specs. |
extensions/extended-isupport.md
Outdated
| Sending a change: | ||
|
|
||
| S: :irc.example.org BATCH +asdf draft/isupport | ||
| S: @batch=asdf :irc.example.org 005 * CHANNELLEN=64 -NETWORK |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-NETWORK isn't a very realistic example. Also, maybe show a key being changed via removal and readdition. Also these examples could do with the full CAP negotiation being shown, including CAP END and maybe the 001 being sent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the intended meaning here is that users will get updates before connection registration?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah the last part refers to the previous example sorry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right. I wasn't sure how far the examples should go, I wouldn't want to list the full registration burst. Will add.
-NETWORK could happen if the network configuration file is reloaded with the network name removed. Do you have another example in mind which might be more realistic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, maybe show a key being changed via removal and readdition.
The ISUPPORT spec says that changing a key is done by advertising it again, rather than removing it and then re-adding it.
0375eea to
e1aea37
Compare
|
I've tried to address the comments. Let me know what you think! |
|
Changes look good. No need to force push updates, makes it a bit harder to review. I squash commits on merge anyway. |
|
Alternatively, instead of spec'ing that servers must send the ISUPPORT list when the cap is enabled, we could guarantee that VERSION works pre-reg and recommend that clients send it after enabling the cap. |
|
I would be slightly more comfortable with allowing
|
|
Just specifying an ISUPPORT command that can work pre-reg works for me. Regarding batch, I feel like this was already discussed, but what use case does batch enable? My implementation just incrementally updates the ISUPPORT list whenever an 005 is received, I don't have a need for an end of isupport marker. |
|
@jwheare there is a note on this here: ircv3/ircv3-ideas#124 (comment) tl;dr it allows the UI to be updated atomically, reducing "flicker". |
|
Ok so maybe define the ISUPPORT command to require use of a batch if the cap is enabled? But leave the existing automatic isupport sent post reg unbatched. Would that work? |
|
That wouldn't work if the server wants to send an atomic update of more than 13 tokens. |
6f43376 to
fe412a0
Compare
|
A new |
|
Looks good, I merged support for this in ergo and deployed it on my staging server ircs://files.stronghold.network |
|
I've finally got some time to implement this in Goguma! Here's the patch: https://codeberg.org/emersion/goguma/pulls/2 Ergo's implementation seems to have a small bug: there is an extraneous With a small workaround for the broken batch type, it seems to work fine: |
|
Sorry about that. I fixed it in ergochat/ergo#2197 and redeployed. |
|
The batch is named "draft/isupport", not "draft/extended-isupport". |
|
Gentle ping :) |
|
Fine to merge this as is, but would the non draft cap name be more self explanatory as prereg-isupport? The format is not being extended by this afaict. |
|
The name "extended-isupport" was picked because the cap also introduces a new batch and a new command. I'm fine using any other name if you prefer. |
|
early-isupport was also suggested by @SadieCat to avoid the potentially confusing "registration" term being used. Anyway, no need to change the draft cap, but merged version should be. Hopefully someone remembers when the time comes! |

Proposal for ircv3/ircv3-ideas#124