-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 399
MSC2666: Get rooms in common with another user #2666
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.
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
base: old_master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 25 commits
c61790e
4264f32
008951f
29f02ed
2b75da8
630af1c
d885bcf
5254076
3f2faef
db99583
10a2df2
d3b17e6
4ac7ce8
a4f5bae
c453704
cd173d5
1a389f9
fbbb2d9
591d3e5
a1de65f
d59d051
6a4e523
b946cc3
ea49670
6f4f01b
60ae94f
7829c3b
92aef5b
d58d0a1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ | ||||||||||
# MSC 2666: Get rooms in common with another user | ||||||||||
anoadragon453 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
It is useful to be able to fetch rooms you have in common with another user. Popular messaging | ||||||||||
services such as Telegram offer users the ability to show "groups in common", which allows users to | ||||||||||
determine what they have in common before participating in conversation. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
There are a variety of applications for this information. Some users may want to block invites from | ||||||||||
users they do not share a room with at the client level, and need a way to poll the homeserver for | ||||||||||
this information. Another use case would be trying to determine how a user came across your MXID, as | ||||||||||
invites on their own do not present much context. With this endpoint, a client could tell you what | ||||||||||
rooms you have in common before you accept an invite. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
While this information can be determined if the user has full access to member state for all rooms, | ||||||||||
modern clients often implement | ||||||||||
[lazy-loading of room members](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.3/client-server-api/#lazy-loading-room-members), | ||||||||||
so they often only have a subset of state for the rooms the user is in. Therefore, the homeserver | ||||||||||
should have a means to provide this information. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
This proposal aims to implement a simple mechanism to fetch rooms you have in common with another | ||||||||||
user. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Proposal | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Homeservers will implement a new endpoint `/_matrix/client/v1/user/mutual_rooms`. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
This endpoint will take a query parameter of `user_id` which will contain the MXID of the user | ||||||||||
matched against. | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+26
to
+27
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ah, it's listed later in the MSC. Is there a technical reason preventing multiple users from being searched? It feels like an awkward thing to make a future MSC for when we're already here. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The discussion context is here: #2666 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There is no technical reason preventing multiple users for being searched, but I don't see a convincing client usecase, while I agreed to keep the path open for one if the time came, to make it easily extendible. In the past, this MSC had path-element handling, but I got convinced that that was a leftover pattern of an older way of handling things, and doing things via query was a newer way, so I applied that. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think if we're not putting the user id in the path, then we shouldn't use the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm also realising that if we want to be able to get rooms in common with more users, there could just be another version of this endpoint. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. With the current MSC text (see "Forward-compatibility considerations"), this seems to be resolved? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I want some clear direction on this. The current version (that I merge in this branch via #4035) changes some labels around enough that i'd have to give it another unstable_features tag. I haven't yet, as i want to sweep the result of this in that tag, before i propose it FCP again. Should I change this back to a path component, or should I keep this as a query element endpoint? I can do either. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
This endpoint can be rate limited. | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. boilerplate:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. /res #4035 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The response format will be an array containing all rooms where both the authenticated user and | ||||||||||
`user_id` have a membership of type `join`. If the `user_id` does not exist, or does not share any | ||||||||||
rooms with the authenticated user, an empty array should be returned. | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is the behaviour on invalid user IDs left as an implementation decision? (I think that's fine if so, but best to say so explicitly) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. IIRC that would fall under some |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
```http | ||||||||||
GET /_matrix/client/v1/user/mutual_rooms/?user_id=%40bob%3Aexample.com | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. this example includes a trailing In general Matrix does not allow extra There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, that's an error from a previous change that moved path-element parameters to query parameters. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. /res #4035 |
||||||||||
``` | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
```json | ||||||||||
{ | ||||||||||
"joined": [ | ||||||||||
"!OGEhHVWSdvArJzumhm:matrix.org", | ||||||||||
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
"!HYlSnuBHTxUPgyZPKC:half-shot.uk", | ||||||||||
"!DueayyFpVTeVOQiYjR:example.com" | ||||||||||
] | ||||||||||
} | ||||||||||
``` | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
anoadragon453 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
The server may decide that the response to this endpoint is too large, and thus an optional key | ||||||||||
`"next_batch_token"` can be inserted, which the client has to pass to `batch_token` in the query | ||||||||||
clokep marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
parameters together with the original `user_id` to fetch the next batch of responses. This will | ||||||||||
continue until the server does no longer insert `"next_batch_token"`. | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Somewhere we need the words "this batch_token is only valid for use with this endpoint", and the semantics for expiration (does the homeserver need to remember the batch token forever?) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think an expiration time of 10 minutes could be reasonable here. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In which case we should specify an error case for clients supplying an unknown / expired batch token, so that they can retry. We can't use We may need to define a new There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I have added the 10 minute timer, and added text that it will handle expired tokens the same as invalid tokens, so that implementations may forget those tokens entirely. Do you think this is a good method? Then the clients' default response to "invalid token" is just to start over, without any token. The only problem i see is that clients may loop on a broken implementation, where it is not passing the right token back to the server will cause it to get stuck in its mechanism where it continually retries. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would just leave the validity period up to the implementation, but recommend at least 10 minutes. Clients should be prepared to handle tokens that do have a ridiculously short window though. I would also recommend clients limit the maximum number of retries before giving up, precisely to prevent infinite loops as you describe. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
```json5 | ||||||||||
{ | ||||||||||
"joined": [ | ||||||||||
// ... | ||||||||||
], | ||||||||||
"next_batch_token": "<any valid ascii string up to 32 chars>" | ||||||||||
anoadragon453 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
} | ||||||||||
``` | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The response error for trying to get shared rooms with yourself will be an HTTP code 422, with | ||||||||||
`M_INVALID_PARAM` as the `errcode`. | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Not a strong opinion here, but 422 is pretty obscure (and we don't use it anywhere else in matrix, afaik). The idea in Matrix is that we shouldn't rely too heavily on HTTP response codes, to make it easier (one day) to move to alternative transports. So if we need to distinguish this from other error cases, we'd do that via a custom There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ftr, CoAP doesn't have code 4.22 or anything semantically similar to HTTP's 422, and there don't seem to be subsequent RFCs addressing that (while 429, e.g., has got its CoAP equivalent in a later RFC). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Doing this sounds like programmer error vs. something that would actually need to be explicitly handled in practice. So this could just be a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I've changed the error to 400 + M_UNKNOWN /res #4035 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Potential issues | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Homeserver performance and storage may be impacted by this endpoint. While a homeserver already | ||||||||||
stores membership information for each of its users, the information may not be stored in a way that | ||||||||||
is readily accessible. Homeservers that have implemented | ||||||||||
[POST /user_directory/search](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.3/client-server-api/#post_matrixclientv3user_directorysearch) | ||||||||||
may have started some of this work, if they are limiting users to searching for users for which they | ||||||||||
share rooms. While this is not a given by any means, it may mean that implementations of this API | ||||||||||
and /search may be complimentary. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Alternatives | ||||||||||
anoadragon453 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
A client which holds full and current state can already see all membership for all rooms, and thus | ||||||||||
determine which of those rooms contains a "join" membership for the given user_id. Clients which "lazy-load" | ||||||||||
however do not have this information, as they will have only synced a subset of the full membership for | ||||||||||
all rooms. While a client *could* pull all membership for all rooms at the point of needing this information, | ||||||||||
it's computationally expensive for both the homeserver and the client, as well as a bandwidth waste for constrained | ||||||||||
clients. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Forward-compatibility considerations | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
There possibly comes a time where it's desirable to query mutual rooms for more-than-one other user, | ||||||||||
where multiple people (including the self-user) are matched against for which rooms all of them | ||||||||||
share. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Because of that, the endpoint accepts a query parameter, however, it will only accept *one* query | ||||||||||
parameter for the time being. In the future this restriction can be lifted to accept multiple query | ||||||||||
parameters under `user_id` | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Security considerations | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The information provided in this endpoint is already accessible to the client if it has a copy of all | ||||||||||
state that the user can see. This endpoint only makes it possible to get this information without having | ||||||||||
to request all state ahead of time. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
## Unstable prefix | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The implementation MUST use `/_matrix/client/unstable/uk.half-shot.msc2666/user/mutual_rooms`. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The /versions endpoint MUST include a new key in `unstable_features` with the name | ||||||||||
`uk.half-shot.msc2666.query_mutual_rooms`. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Previous iterations of this MSC has used the following `unstable_features` key(s): | ||||||||||
- `uk.half-shot.msc2666.mutual_rooms` | ||||||||||
anoadragon453 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
If the value is false or the key is not present, clients MUST assume the feature is not available. | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Once the MSC has been merged, and the homeserver has advertised support for the Matrix version that | ||||||||||
this endpoint is included in, clients should use `/_matrix/client/v1/user/mutual_rooms` and will no | ||||||||||
longer need to check for the `unstable_features` flag. | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+127
to
+129
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
It may also be worth reading #4024 to match the language there, as this seems like the sort of feature a client would want to use between FCP completing and spec release. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, I think with this original language I remember/wrote this down to "consider stable" to be "when it is included in a spec version" Together with richvdh's comment here, i think that for this MSC it is unnecessary to introduce a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. /res |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.