This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 11, 2024. It is now read-only.
Replace uses of checkDeviceTrust with getDeviceVerificationStatus
#10663
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
richvdh
added
the
T-Task
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
e16cba5 to
60f6e20
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
60f6e20 to
2545dc6
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
2545dc6 to
d9c3e33
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
d9c3e33 to
e487a07
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
e487a07 to
1d88f27
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
1d88f27 to
3fc5044
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
2 times, most recently
from
36f9494 to
b2284c3
Compare
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
b2284c3 to
f1adf65
Compare
We have a method called `fetchDevicesWithVerification` which is currently used in the new Session manager. Let's use it for the (old) Devices Panel too, because it allows us to check the device verification upfront, rather than on the fly, which is going to be handy when that operation becomes async
these are in an async method, but currently use `some`. We need to invent an `asyncSome` (we already have an `asyncEvery`) and use that
... which means making it async
This is ok except we need an "unmounted" guard because it's an old-style componment
richvdh
force-pushed
the
rav/element-r/01_device_verification_status
branch
from
639cc2b to
1cc6e40
Compare
t3chguy
reviewed
Apr 21, 2023
Comment on lines
+327
to
+335
| /** | ||
| * Async version of Array.some. | ||
| */ | ||
| export async function asyncSome<T>(values: T[], predicate: (value: T) => Promise<boolean>): Promise<boolean> { | ||
| for (const value of values) { | ||
| if (await predicate(value)) return true; | ||
| } | ||
| return false; | ||
| } |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might this be worth doing with Promise.race or similar as one slow or never resolving promise might wedge things up here
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe. I'm somewhat keen to keep it symmetrical with asyncEvery, and the semantics are much easier to reason about if the promises happen serially.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fair, didn't see asyncEvery
| // For other people's devices, the more general verified check that | ||
| // includes locally verified devices can be used. | ||
| const isVerified = isMe ? deviceTrust.isCrossSigningVerified() : deviceTrust.isVerified(); | ||
| const isVerified = deviceTrust && (isMe ? deviceTrust.crossSigningVerified : deviceTrust.isVerified()); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| const isVerified = deviceTrust && (isMe ? deviceTrust.crossSigningVerified : deviceTrust.isVerified()); | |
| const isVerified = isMe ? deviceTrust?.crossSigningVerified : deviceTrust?.isVerified()); |
To match L177 in the same file
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem here is avoiding the implicit cast to boolean if deviceTrust is nullish. We could do something like isVerified = !!(isMe ? deviceTrust?.crossSigningVerified : deviceTrust?.isVerified())) but I'm far from convinced that's clearer.
At L177, we have an explicit check on deviceTrust, so I'd say my variant of this is closer to L177 than yours.
t3chguy
reviewed
Apr 24, 2023
src/DeviceListener.ts
Outdated
Comment on lines
327
to
328
| .getCrypto() | ||
| ?.getDeviceVerificationStatus(cli.getUserId()!, device.deviceId!); | ||
| !.getDeviceVerificationStatus(cli.getUserId()!, device.deviceId!); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ! needs to be on .getCrypto()!
t3chguy
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2023
richvdh
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2023
* Fix remaing use of `checkDeviceTrust` Followup to #10663 * fix strict type-checking error
This was referenced May 24, 2023
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk#3287 and matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk#3303 added a new API called
getDeviceVerificationStatus. Let's use it.Hopefully this makes sense to review commit-by-commit.
The quality gate isn't quite met but there are cypress tests covering the places where coverage is lacking.
Fixes element-hq/element-web#25092 and element-hq/element-web#25093
This change is marked as an internal change (Task), so will not be included in the changelog.