To follow up on my #ActivityPub C2S post from a few days ago, I wrote a blog article on my thoughts about improving the C2S protocol and a description of some related experimentation I've been doing.
-
@mariusor I worked against https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-api
@mariusor when box tries to dereference an Activity, can you maybe add the `application/activity+json` header to the request?
-
@mariusor when box tries to dereference an Activity, can you maybe add the `application/activity+json` header to the request?
@pfefferle that should already be the case. How does the accept header look like for you on the server? I'll double check tomorrow if I'm doing something stupid and haven't noticed until now.
-
@pfefferle that should already be the case. How does the accept header look like for you on the server? I'll double check tomorrow if I'm doing something stupid and haven't noticed until now.
@mariusor it seems to be a different issue!
(I am not very familiar with go, so please don't blame me if what I say is totally wrong)
I think box is checking for an Actor object and if it finds only a URI, it simply assumes that the Outbox is `{profile-id}/outbox` instead of checking for the real outbox URL!?
-
@mariusor it seems to be a different issue!
(I am not very familiar with go, so please don't blame me if what I say is totally wrong)
I think box is checking for an Actor object and if it finds only a URI, it simply assumes that the Outbox is `{profile-id}/outbox` instead of checking for the real outbox URL!?
@pfefferle yes, that might be possible. BOX is strongly biased with the conventions of GoActivitPub where actorIRI/outbox is most of the time a safe assumption to make.
But there are mechanisms to dereference the oubox correctly after loading an Actor object, and usually I default to that, the "just append outbox to the URL" logic is a last resort.
Do you think you can send an email to the GoActivityPub mailing list with details about your issue, so I can try to find where exactly this happens? TY
Just click new post on this page: https://lists.sr.ht/~mariusor/go-activitypub-dev
-
@pfefferle yes, that might be possible. BOX is strongly biased with the conventions of GoActivitPub where actorIRI/outbox is most of the time a safe assumption to make.
But there are mechanisms to dereference the oubox correctly after loading an Actor object, and usually I default to that, the "just append outbox to the URL" logic is a last resort.
Do you think you can send an email to the GoActivityPub mailing list with details about your issue, so I can try to find where exactly this happens? TY
Just click new post on this page: https://lists.sr.ht/~mariusor/go-activitypub-dev
@pfefferle I changed some stuff to a potential place where this could have happened.
If you can build a new version of BOX, please try again and let me know if it fixes the issue for you.
-
@pfefferle I changed some stuff to a potential place where this could have happened.
If you can build a new version of BOX, please try again and let me know if it fixes the issue for you.
@mariusor it seems to work now! awesome!
-
@pfefferle I changed some stuff to a potential place where this could have happened.
If you can build a new version of BOX, please try again and let me know if it fixes the issue for you.
-
@pfefferle love it!
GoActivityPub doesn't really do "scopes" because I couldn't think of a way store the permissions on the server side in a way that doesn't require custom logic to interact with vanilla ActivityPub objects.
-
@pfefferle love it!
GoActivityPub doesn't really do "scopes" because I couldn't think of a way store the permissions on the server side in a way that doesn't require custom logic to interact with vanilla ActivityPub objects.
@mariusor yea, I think the scopes and the PKCE part was the issue!
but finally...
-
@pfefferle love it!
GoActivityPub doesn't really do "scopes" because I couldn't think of a way store the permissions on the server side in a way that doesn't require custom logic to interact with vanilla ActivityPub objects.
@pfefferle if I'd come up with a scheme for them they would be related to pairs of activityType:objectType entries (instead of a global write), or maybe just the activityType
Ie, Create:Note, Create:Image, Undo, Delete.
-
@mariusor yea, I think the scopes and the PKCE part was the issue!
but finally...
@pfefferle I added a PKCE task to my todo list:
-
@pfefferle I added a PKCE task to my todo list:
@mariusor awesome!
️
