You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

144 lines
3.3 KiB

Change IDs to strings rather than numbers in API JSON output (#5019) * Fix JavaScript interface with long IDs Somewhat predictably, the JS interface handled IDs as numbers, which in JS are IEEE double-precision floats. This loses some precision when working with numbers as large as those generated by the new ID scheme, so we instead handle them here as strings. This is relatively simple, and doesn't appear to have caused any problems, but should definitely be tested more thoroughly than the built-in tests. Several days of use appear to support this working properly. BREAKING CHANGE: The major(!) change here is that IDs are now returned as strings by the REST endpoints, rather than as integers. In practice, relatively few changes were required to make the existing JS UI work with this change, but it will likely hit API clients pretty hard: it's an entirely different type to consume. (The one API client I tested, Tusky, handles this with no problems, however.) Twitter ran into this issue when introducing Snowflake IDs, and decided to instead introduce an `id_str` field in JSON responses. I have opted to *not* do that, and instead force all IDs to 64-bit integers represented by strings in one go. (I believe Twitter exacerbated their problem by rolling out the changes three times: once for statuses, once for DMs, and once for user IDs, as well as by leaving an integer ID value in JSON. As they said, "If you’re using the `id` field with JSON in a Javascript-related language, there is a very high likelihood that the integers will be silently munged by Javascript interpreters. In most cases, this will result in behavior such as being unable to load or delete a specific direct message, because the ID you're sending to the API is different than the actual identifier associated with the message." [1]) However, given that this is a significant change for API users, alternatives or a transition time may be appropriate. 1: https://blog.twitter.com/developer/en_us/a/2011/direct-messages-going-snowflake-on-sep-30-2011.html * Additional fixes for stringified IDs in JSON These should be the last two. These were identified using eslint to try to identify any plain casts to JavaScript numbers. (Some such casts are legitimate, but these were not.) Adding the following to .eslintrc.yml will identify casts to numbers: ~~~ no-restricted-syntax: - warn - selector: UnaryExpression[operator='+'] > :not(Literal) message: Avoid the use of unary + - selector: CallExpression[callee.name='Number'] message: Casting with Number() may coerce string IDs to numbers ~~~ The remaining three casts appear legitimate: two casts to array indices, one in a server to turn an environment variable into a number. * Back out RelationshipsController Change This was made to make a test a bit less flakey, but has nothing to do with this branch. * Change internal streaming payloads to stringified IDs as well Per https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/5019#issuecomment-330736452 we need these changes to send deleted status IDs as strings, not integers.
6 years ago
Change IDs to strings rather than numbers in API JSON output (#5019) * Fix JavaScript interface with long IDs Somewhat predictably, the JS interface handled IDs as numbers, which in JS are IEEE double-precision floats. This loses some precision when working with numbers as large as those generated by the new ID scheme, so we instead handle them here as strings. This is relatively simple, and doesn't appear to have caused any problems, but should definitely be tested more thoroughly than the built-in tests. Several days of use appear to support this working properly. BREAKING CHANGE: The major(!) change here is that IDs are now returned as strings by the REST endpoints, rather than as integers. In practice, relatively few changes were required to make the existing JS UI work with this change, but it will likely hit API clients pretty hard: it's an entirely different type to consume. (The one API client I tested, Tusky, handles this with no problems, however.) Twitter ran into this issue when introducing Snowflake IDs, and decided to instead introduce an `id_str` field in JSON responses. I have opted to *not* do that, and instead force all IDs to 64-bit integers represented by strings in one go. (I believe Twitter exacerbated their problem by rolling out the changes three times: once for statuses, once for DMs, and once for user IDs, as well as by leaving an integer ID value in JSON. As they said, "If you’re using the `id` field with JSON in a Javascript-related language, there is a very high likelihood that the integers will be silently munged by Javascript interpreters. In most cases, this will result in behavior such as being unable to load or delete a specific direct message, because the ID you're sending to the API is different than the actual identifier associated with the message." [1]) However, given that this is a significant change for API users, alternatives or a transition time may be appropriate. 1: https://blog.twitter.com/developer/en_us/a/2011/direct-messages-going-snowflake-on-sep-30-2011.html * Additional fixes for stringified IDs in JSON These should be the last two. These were identified using eslint to try to identify any plain casts to JavaScript numbers. (Some such casts are legitimate, but these were not.) Adding the following to .eslintrc.yml will identify casts to numbers: ~~~ no-restricted-syntax: - warn - selector: UnaryExpression[operator='+'] > :not(Literal) message: Avoid the use of unary + - selector: CallExpression[callee.name='Number'] message: Casting with Number() may coerce string IDs to numbers ~~~ The remaining three casts appear legitimate: two casts to array indices, one in a server to turn an environment variable into a number. * Back out RelationshipsController Change This was made to make a test a bit less flakey, but has nothing to do with this branch. * Change internal streaming payloads to stringified IDs as well Per https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/5019#issuecomment-330736452 we need these changes to send deleted status IDs as strings, not integers.
6 years ago
Change IDs to strings rather than numbers in API JSON output (#5019) * Fix JavaScript interface with long IDs Somewhat predictably, the JS interface handled IDs as numbers, which in JS are IEEE double-precision floats. This loses some precision when working with numbers as large as those generated by the new ID scheme, so we instead handle them here as strings. This is relatively simple, and doesn't appear to have caused any problems, but should definitely be tested more thoroughly than the built-in tests. Several days of use appear to support this working properly. BREAKING CHANGE: The major(!) change here is that IDs are now returned as strings by the REST endpoints, rather than as integers. In practice, relatively few changes were required to make the existing JS UI work with this change, but it will likely hit API clients pretty hard: it's an entirely different type to consume. (The one API client I tested, Tusky, handles this with no problems, however.) Twitter ran into this issue when introducing Snowflake IDs, and decided to instead introduce an `id_str` field in JSON responses. I have opted to *not* do that, and instead force all IDs to 64-bit integers represented by strings in one go. (I believe Twitter exacerbated their problem by rolling out the changes three times: once for statuses, once for DMs, and once for user IDs, as well as by leaving an integer ID value in JSON. As they said, "If you’re using the `id` field with JSON in a Javascript-related language, there is a very high likelihood that the integers will be silently munged by Javascript interpreters. In most cases, this will result in behavior such as being unable to load or delete a specific direct message, because the ID you're sending to the API is different than the actual identifier associated with the message." [1]) However, given that this is a significant change for API users, alternatives or a transition time may be appropriate. 1: https://blog.twitter.com/developer/en_us/a/2011/direct-messages-going-snowflake-on-sep-30-2011.html * Additional fixes for stringified IDs in JSON These should be the last two. These were identified using eslint to try to identify any plain casts to JavaScript numbers. (Some such casts are legitimate, but these were not.) Adding the following to .eslintrc.yml will identify casts to numbers: ~~~ no-restricted-syntax: - warn - selector: UnaryExpression[operator='+'] > :not(Literal) message: Avoid the use of unary + - selector: CallExpression[callee.name='Number'] message: Casting with Number() may coerce string IDs to numbers ~~~ The remaining three casts appear legitimate: two casts to array indices, one in a server to turn an environment variable into a number. * Back out RelationshipsController Change This was made to make a test a bit less flakey, but has nothing to do with this branch. * Change internal streaming payloads to stringified IDs as well Per https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/5019#issuecomment-330736452 we need these changes to send deleted status IDs as strings, not integers.
6 years ago
Change IDs to strings rather than numbers in API JSON output (#5019) * Fix JavaScript interface with long IDs Somewhat predictably, the JS interface handled IDs as numbers, which in JS are IEEE double-precision floats. This loses some precision when working with numbers as large as those generated by the new ID scheme, so we instead handle them here as strings. This is relatively simple, and doesn't appear to have caused any problems, but should definitely be tested more thoroughly than the built-in tests. Several days of use appear to support this working properly. BREAKING CHANGE: The major(!) change here is that IDs are now returned as strings by the REST endpoints, rather than as integers. In practice, relatively few changes were required to make the existing JS UI work with this change, but it will likely hit API clients pretty hard: it's an entirely different type to consume. (The one API client I tested, Tusky, handles this with no problems, however.) Twitter ran into this issue when introducing Snowflake IDs, and decided to instead introduce an `id_str` field in JSON responses. I have opted to *not* do that, and instead force all IDs to 64-bit integers represented by strings in one go. (I believe Twitter exacerbated their problem by rolling out the changes three times: once for statuses, once for DMs, and once for user IDs, as well as by leaving an integer ID value in JSON. As they said, "If you’re using the `id` field with JSON in a Javascript-related language, there is a very high likelihood that the integers will be silently munged by Javascript interpreters. In most cases, this will result in behavior such as being unable to load or delete a specific direct message, because the ID you're sending to the API is different than the actual identifier associated with the message." [1]) However, given that this is a significant change for API users, alternatives or a transition time may be appropriate. 1: https://blog.twitter.com/developer/en_us/a/2011/direct-messages-going-snowflake-on-sep-30-2011.html * Additional fixes for stringified IDs in JSON These should be the last two. These were identified using eslint to try to identify any plain casts to JavaScript numbers. (Some such casts are legitimate, but these were not.) Adding the following to .eslintrc.yml will identify casts to numbers: ~~~ no-restricted-syntax: - warn - selector: UnaryExpression[operator='+'] > :not(Literal) message: Avoid the use of unary + - selector: CallExpression[callee.name='Number'] message: Casting with Number() may coerce string IDs to numbers ~~~ The remaining three casts appear legitimate: two casts to array indices, one in a server to turn an environment variable into a number. * Back out RelationshipsController Change This was made to make a test a bit less flakey, but has nothing to do with this branch. * Change internal streaming payloads to stringified IDs as well Per https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/5019#issuecomment-330736452 we need these changes to send deleted status IDs as strings, not integers.
6 years ago
  1. # frozen_string_literal: true
  2. class REST::StatusSerializer < ActiveModel::Serializer
  3. attributes :id, :created_at, :in_reply_to_id, :in_reply_to_account_id,
  4. :sensitive, :spoiler_text, :visibility, :language,
  5. :uri, :content, :url, :replies_count, :reblogs_count,
  6. :favourites_count
  7. attribute :favourited, if: :current_user?
  8. attribute :reblogged, if: :current_user?
  9. attribute :muted, if: :current_user?
  10. attribute :pinned, if: :pinnable?
  11. belongs_to :reblog, serializer: REST::StatusSerializer
  12. belongs_to :application, if: :show_application?
  13. belongs_to :account, serializer: REST::AccountSerializer
  14. has_many :media_attachments, serializer: REST::MediaAttachmentSerializer
  15. has_many :ordered_mentions, key: :mentions
  16. has_many :tags
  17. has_many :emojis, serializer: REST::CustomEmojiSerializer
  18. has_one :preview_card, key: :card, serializer: REST::PreviewCardSerializer
  19. def id
  20. object.id.to_s
  21. end
  22. def in_reply_to_id
  23. object.in_reply_to_id&.to_s
  24. end
  25. def in_reply_to_account_id
  26. object.in_reply_to_account_id&.to_s
  27. end
  28. def current_user?
  29. !current_user.nil?
  30. end
  31. def show_application?
  32. object.account.user_shows_application? || (current_user? && current_user.account_id == object.account_id)
  33. end
  34. def visibility
  35. # This visibility is masked behind "private"
  36. # to avoid API changes because there are no
  37. # UX differences
  38. if object.limited_visibility?
  39. 'private'
  40. else
  41. object.visibility
  42. end
  43. end
  44. def uri
  45. OStatus::TagManager.instance.uri_for(object)
  46. end
  47. def content
  48. Formatter.instance.format(object)
  49. end
  50. def url
  51. TagManager.instance.url_for(object)
  52. end
  53. def favourited
  54. if instance_options && instance_options[:relationships]
  55. instance_options[:relationships].favourites_map[object.id] || false
  56. else
  57. current_user.account.favourited?(object)
  58. end
  59. end
  60. def reblogged
  61. if instance_options && instance_options[:relationships]
  62. instance_options[:relationships].reblogs_map[object.id] || false
  63. else
  64. current_user.account.reblogged?(object)
  65. end
  66. end
  67. def muted
  68. if instance_options && instance_options[:relationships]
  69. instance_options[:relationships].mutes_map[object.conversation_id] || false
  70. else
  71. current_user.account.muting_conversation?(object.conversation)
  72. end
  73. end
  74. def pinned
  75. if instance_options && instance_options[:relationships]
  76. instance_options[:relationships].pins_map[object.id] || false
  77. else
  78. current_user.account.pinned?(object)
  79. end
  80. end
  81. def pinnable?
  82. current_user? &&
  83. current_user.account_id == object.account_id &&
  84. !object.reblog? &&
  85. %w(public unlisted).include?(object.visibility)
  86. end
  87. def ordered_mentions
  88. object.active_mentions.to_a.sort_by(&:id)
  89. end
  90. class ApplicationSerializer < ActiveModel::Serializer
  91. attributes :name, :website
  92. end
  93. class MentionSerializer < ActiveModel::Serializer
  94. attributes :id, :username, :url, :acct
  95. def id
  96. object.account_id.to_s
  97. end
  98. def username
  99. object.account_username
  100. end
  101. def url
  102. TagManager.instance.url_for(object.account)
  103. end
  104. def acct
  105. object.account_acct
  106. end
  107. end
  108. class TagSerializer < ActiveModel::Serializer
  109. include RoutingHelper
  110. attributes :name, :url
  111. def url
  112. tag_url(object)
  113. end
  114. end
  115. end