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.

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

Inconsistency on the side effect of receiving a Follow activity #320

Open
marnanel opened this issue Sep 10, 2018 · 6 comments
Open

Inconsistency on the side effect of receiving a Follow activity #320

marnanel opened this issue Sep 10, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@marnanel
Copy link

marnanel commented Sep 10, 2018

Section 5.3 says:

Every actor SHOULD have a followers collection. This is a list of everyone who has sent a Follow activity for the actor, added as a side effect.

But section 7.5 disagrees: the side effect is to send an Accept or a Reject activity. The actor is only added to the followers collection if the reply is Accept.

The side effect of receiving [the Follow activity] in an inbox is that the server SHOULD generate either an Accept or Reject activity with the Follow as the object and deliver it to the actor of the Follow. [...] In the case of receiving an Accept referencing this Follow as the object, the server SHOULD add the actor to the object actor's Followers Collection.

Also, I think "receiving" in the last sentence should be "sending".

@trwnh
Copy link

trwnh commented Apr 2, 2023

In the case of receiving an Accept referencing this Follow as the object, the server SHOULD add the actor to the object actor's Followers Collection.

that last sentence seems backwards. it should likely indeed be "sending", but it should probably also say "add the [object actor] to the [actor's] Followers Collection". in other words, Follow.actor is added to Accept.actor.followers -- the person following you is added to your followers collection, not the other way around.

@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Jun 21, 2024

I agree on both points. We need to add two errata; one for the misleading and inaccurate description of followers, and the other for the inaccurate processing of Accept activities.

@evanp evanp added the Needs errata We need to add errata for this label Jun 21, 2024
@evanp evanp self-assigned this Jun 21, 2024
@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Dec 6, 2024

OK, there are 3 things to do here:

  1. Change the erroneous explanation of followers.
  2. Remove the sentence about receiving an Accept activity from the section on the Follow activity.
  3. Add sections on Accept and Reject to section 6 on the ActivityPub API. The sentence that was removed may make sense there.

I am going to add errata for the first two. I think the third is important enough that we should address it in the next version of the spec, but not enough of an error to include in Errata. However, it would probably be helpful to cover in the Primer.

@evanp evanp added Needs Primer Page Needs a page in the ActivityPub primer Next version Normative change, requires new version of spec labels Dec 6, 2024
@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Dec 13, 2024

I've added an erratum for section 5.3 here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed

Section 5.3 should begin, Every actor SHOULD have a followers collection. This is where one would find a list of all the actors that are following the actor.

@evanp evanp added Needs Group Input/Decision and removed Needs errata We need to add errata for this labels Dec 13, 2024
@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Dec 13, 2024

I've added an erratum for section 7.5 "Follow Activity" here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed

In section 7.5 "Follow Activity", the second paragraph is incorrect, and should be removed.

@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Jan 17, 2025

The third issue is called out specifically in #489 , so I think we remove the Needs Primer Page from this issue and leave it on that one.

@evanp evanp removed Needs Primer Page Needs a page in the ActivityPub primer Next version Normative change, requires new version of spec labels Jan 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants