Add a (long) timeout to when a "busy" device is considered not online.
This does *not* match MSC3026, but is a reasonable thing for an
implementation to do.
Expands tests for the (unstable) busy presence with multiple devices.
Tracks presence on an individual per-device basis and combine
the per-device state into a per-user state. This should help in
situations where a user has multiple devices with conflicting status
(e.g. one is syncing with unavailable and one is syncing with online).
The tie-breaking is done by priority:
BUSY > ONLINE > UNAVAILABLE > OFFLINE
* Fix rare bug that broke looping calls
We can't interact with the reactor from the main thread via looping
call.
Introduced in v1.90.0 / #15791.
* Newsfile
Refactoring to use both the user ID & the device ID when tracking
the currently syncing users in the presence handler.
This is done both locally and over replication. Note that the device
ID is discarded but will be used in a future change.
Refactoring to pass the device ID (in addition to the user ID) through
the presence handler (specifically the `user_syncing`, `set_state`,
and `bump_presence_active_time` methods and their replication
versions).
Simplify some of the presence code by reducing duplicated code between
worker & non-worker modes.
The main change is to push some of the logic from `user_syncing` into
`set_state`. This is done by passing whether the user is setting the presence
via a `/sync` with a new `is_sync` flag to `set_state`. If this is `true` some
additional logic is performed:
* Don't override `busy` presence.
* Update the `last_user_sync_ts`.
* Never update the status message.
* Properly update retry_last_ts when hitting the maximum retry interval
This was broken in 1.87 when the maximum retry interval got changed from
almost infinite to a week (and made configurable).
fixes#16101
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Werner <nicolas.werner@hotmail.de>
* Add changelog
* Change fix + add test
* Add comment
---------
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Werner <nicolas.werner@hotmail.de>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Velten <mathieuv@matrix.org>
If we don't have all the auth events in a room then not all state events will have a chain cover index. Even so, we can still use the chain cover index on the events that do have it, rather than bailing and using the slower functions.
This situation should not arise for newly persisted rooms, as we check we have the full auth chain for each event, but can happen for existing rooms.
c.f. #15245
We were seeing serialization errors when taking out multiple read locks.
The transactions were retried, so isn't causing any failures.
Introduced in #15782.
Patrick Cloke