Thanks to some slightly overzealous cleanup in the
`delete_old_current_state_events`, it's possible to end up with no
`event_forward_extremities` in a room where we have outstanding local
invites. The user would then get a "no create event in auth events" when trying
to reject the invite.
We can hack around it by using the dangling invite as the prev event.
Fixes#2181.
The basic premise is that, when we
fail to reject an invite via the remote server, we can generate our own
out-of-band leave event and persist it as an outlier, so that we have something
to send to the client.
The idea here is that if an instance persists an event via the replication HTTP API it can return before we receive that event over replication, which can lead to races where code assumes that persisting an event immediately updates various caches (e.g. current state of the room).
Most of Synapse doesn't hit such races, so we don't do the waiting automagically, instead we do so where necessary to avoid unnecessary delays. We may decide to change our minds here if it turns out there are a lot of subtle races going on.
People probably want to look at this commit by commit.
Currently we rely on `current_state_events` to figure out what rooms a
user was in and their last membership event in there. However, if the
server leaves the room then the table may be cleaned up and that
information is lost. So lets add a table that separately holds that
information.
It turns out that _local_membership_update doesn't run when you join a new, remote room. It only runs if you're joining a room that your server already knows about. This would explain #4703 and #5295 and why the transfer would work in testing and some rooms, but not others. This would especially hit single-user homeservers.
The check has been moved to right after the room has been joined, and works much more reliably. (Though it may still be a bit awkward of a place).
Copy push rules during a room upgrade from the old room to the new room, instead of deleting them from the old room.
For instance, we've defined upgrading of a room multiple times to be possible, and push rules won't be transferred on the second upgrade if they're deleted during the first.
Also fix some missing yields that probably broke things quite a bit.
Uses a SimpleHttpClient instance equipped with the federation_ip_range_blacklist list for requests to identity servers provided by user input. Does not use a blacklist when contacting identity servers specified by account_threepid_delegates. The homeserver trusts the latter and we don't want to prevent homeserver admins from specifying delegates that are on internal IP addresses.
Fixes#5935
3PID invites require making a request to an identity server to check that the invited 3PID has an Matrix ID linked, and if so, what it is.
These requests are being made on behalf of a user. The user will supply an identity server and an access token for that identity server. The homeserver will then forward this request with the access token (using an `Authorization` header) and, if the given identity server doesn't support v2 endpoints, will fall back to v1 (which doesn't require any access tokens).
Requires: ~~#5976~~
Some small fixes to `room_member.py` found while doing other PRs.
1. Add requester to the base `_remote_reject_invite` method.
2. `send_membership_event`'s docstring was out of date and took in a `remote_room_hosts` arg that was not used and no calling function provided.
Python will return a tuple whether there are parentheses around the returned values or not.
I'm just sick of my editor complaining about this all over the place :)
This has never been documented, and I'm not sure it's ever been used outside
sytest.
It's quite a lot of poorly-maintained code, so I'd like to get rid of it.
For now I haven't removed the database table; I suggest we leave that for a
future clearout.
This would cause emails being sent, but Synapse responding with a 429 when creating the event. The client would then retry, and with bad timing the same scenario would happen again. Some testing I did ended up sending me 10 emails for one single invite because of this.
