* Add a limit to how many posts can get fetched as a result of a single request
* Add tests
* Always pass `request_id` when processing `Announce` activities
---------
Co-authored-by: nametoolong <nametoolong@users.noreply.github.com>
* Move ActivityPub::FetchRemoteAccountService to ActivityPub::FetchRemoteActorService
ActivityPub::FetchRemoteAccountService is kept as a wrapper for when the actor is
specifically required to be an Account
* Refactor SignatureVerification to allow non-Account actors
* fixup! Move ActivityPub::FetchRemoteAccountService to ActivityPub::FetchRemoteActorService
* Refactor ActivityPub::FetchRemoteKeyService to potentially return non-Account actors
* Refactor inbound ActivityPub payload processing to accept non-Account actors
* Refactor inbound ActivityPub processing to accept activities relayed through non-Account
* Refactor how Account key URIs are built
* Refactor Request and drop unused key_id_format parameter
* Rename ActivityPub::Dereferencer `signature_account` to `signature_actor`
* Fix PeerTube videos appearing with an erroneous “Edited at” marker
PeerTube videos have an `updated` field equal to `published`.
When processing an incoming activity that has the same value for `updated` and
`published`, assume this doesn't represent an actual edit.
* Please CodeClimate
* Add tests
* Ensure deleted statuses are marked as such
* Save some redis memory by not storing URIs in delete_upon_arrival values
* Avoid possible race condition when processing incoming Deletes
* Avoid potential duplicate Delete forwards
* Lower lock durations to reduce issues in case of hard crash of the Rails process
* Check for `lock.aquired?` and improve comment
* Refactor RedisLock usage in app/lib/activitypub
* Fix using incorrect or non-existent sender for relaying Deletes
* Fix URI of repeat follow requests not being recorded
In case we receive a “repeat” or “duplicate” follow request, we automatically
fast-forward the accept with the latest received Activity `id`, but we don't
record it.
In general, a “repeat” or “duplicate” follow request may happen if for some
reason (e.g. inconsistent handling of Block or Undo Accept activities, an
instance being brought back up from the dead, etc.) the local instance thought
the remote actor were following them while the remote actor thought otherwise.
In those cases, the remote instance does not know about the older Follow
activity `id`, so keeping that record serves no purpose, but knowing the most
recent one is useful if the remote implementation at some point refers to it
by `id` without inlining it.
* Add tests
* Added .deepsource.toml
* Removed bad use of `alias`
* Fixed operand order in the binary expression
* Prefixed unused method arguments with an underscore
* Replaced the old OpenSSL algorithmic constants with the newer strings initializers.
* Removed unnecessary UTF-8 encoding comment
* Change content-type to be always computed from file data
Restore previous behavior, detecting the content-type isn't very
expensive, and some instances may serve files as application/octet-stream
regardless of their true type, making fetching media from them fail, while
it used to work pre-3.2.0.
* Add test
* Fix not handling Undo on some activity types when they aren't inlined
When receiving an Undo for a non-inlined activity, try looking it up in
database using the URI. The queries are ad-hoc because we don't have a global
index of object URIs, and not all activity types are stored in database with
an index on their URI.
Announces are just statuses, and have an index on URIs, so this check can
be done efficiently.
Accepts cannot be handled at all because we don't record their URI at any
point.
Follows don't have an index on URI, but they have an index on the issuing
account, which should make such queries largely manageable.
Likes don't have an index on URI, they have an index on the issuing account,
but the number of favs per account may be very high, so I decided not to
handle that.
Blocks don't have an index on URI, but they have an index on the issuing
account, which should make such queries largely manageable.
In all cases, if an Undo could not be handled properly, we call `delete_later!`
because that does not require us to know more than the URI of the undone
property.
* Add tests
* Make newer blocks overwrite older ones
Allows re-synchronizing block info by re-blocking and un-blocking again
when the original Undo Block has been lost.
Claire