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

Add last_known_event_id property #3986

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add last_known_event_id property #3986

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions proposals/3946-dynamic-predecessor.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ key | type | value | description | required
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
`predecessor_room_id` | string | Room ID | A reference to the room that came before and was replaced by this room | yes
`via_servers` | [string] | List of server names | The servers to attempt to join the room through. These servers should be participating in the room to be useful. This option is necessary since room ID's are not routable on their own.
`last_known_event_id` | string | Event ID | The event ID of the last known event in the old room
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this useful? We should continue the conversation in #3946 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor

@MadLittleMods MadLittleMods Apr 4, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@andybalaam Friendly poke to respond in the other thread ^ so we can close or merge this PR.

(we could close regardless in favor of just updating the original MSC after reaching a conclusion in that thread)


The presence of `m.room.predecessor` state in the room should take priority over the
`predecessor` specified in the `m.room.create` event.
Expand Down