Opened at 2011-02-22T19:32:51Z
Last modified at 2011-07-24T12:35:19Z
#757 new defect
Bring back lcnicks setting
| Reported by: | anonymous | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | BitlBee | Version: | 3.0.1 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| IRC client+version: | Client-independent | Operating System: | Public server |
| OS version/distro: |
Description
bitlbee handles nicks in both anonymous and non-anonymous Jabber MUCs incorrectly.
In the anonymous case, two nicks in different rooms with the same name are considered duplicates, so you have Bob in the first room and Bob_ in the second room.
In the non-anonymous case, all nicks are forced to lower-case.
The attached patch fixes the lower-casing of non-anonymous MUC nicks. Specifically, it causes them to respect the lcnicks variable.
-Robin
Attachments (1)
Change History (8)
Changed at 2011-02-22T19:33:33Z by
| Attachment: | fix-muc-lc.txt added |
|---|
comment:1 Changed at 2011-02-22T19:34:36Z by
Two more things: I used the patch at http://bugs.bitlbee.org/bitlbee/ticket/415 when I made this, and you can reach me at rlpowell@… ; I didn't mean to enter the ticket anonymously.
-Robin
comment:2 follow-up: 3 Changed at 2011-03-08T06:29:44Z by
So the underscores are "necessary". There is no guarantee that Joe in channel 1 and Joe in channel 2 are the same person at all, so BitlBee shouldn't give them the same nick - you can /query these nicks so which person should your messages go to?
It's an unfortunate limitation of the IRC protocol.
lcnicks is a IRC-level setting and should not be touched from inside IM modules. I'll bring the thing back to live soon though. ui-fix broke it and it appears that many people like it more this way.
comment:3 Changed at 2011-03-08T06:50:36Z by
Replying to wilmer:
So the underscores are "necessary". There is no guarantee that Joe in channel 1 and Joe in channel 2 are the same person at all
There is if they both have the same full xmpp ID.
-Robin
comment:4 follow-up: 5 Changed at 2011-03-08T06:57:24Z by
On 07-03-11 22:50, BitlBee wrote:
There is if they both have the same full xmpp ID.
Yes, but that's a piece of info you don't get in anonymous rooms. :-)
comment:5 Changed at 2011-03-08T07:02:20Z by
Replying to Wilmer van der Gaast <wilmer@…>:
On 07-03-11 22:50, BitlBee wrote:
There is if they both have the same full xmpp ID.
Yes, but that's a piece of info you don't get in anonymous rooms. :-)
Yes, this is true, but it should be possible to avoid the underscores across multiple public rooms, no?
-Robin
comment:6 Changed at 2011-03-08T07:13:17Z by
True, but in that case I think they're not there anyway since BitlBee uses the person's BitlBee nickname.
People argue that this is also wrong though ...
Thing is, even then room1/foo and room2/foo are not the same person and the receiver will see the difference. I guess it's worth getting rid of the ugly underscore though.
comment:7 Changed at 2011-07-24T12:35:19Z by
| Summary: | Problems with nicks in Jabber MUCs; patch included. → Bring back lcnicks setting |
|---|
Changing bug to what remains to be done.
I first had ambitious plans for lots of flexibility and custimisation by putting stuff like this in nick_format. The risk here is that the syntax would become worse than sendmail.cf so I'll drop that idea.
There's another bug for Jabber chatroom nicknames. Making those flawless (no underscores) is going to be hard, not sure if that'll happen. I hate them, but I do prefer correctness over prettiness.
Patch to have nicks in non-anonymous Jabber MUCs respect the lcnicks variable.