Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @silverpill@mitra.social
Phantasm@phnt@fluffytail.org (2026-06-14 21:04:49)
@silverpill
>And one thing that caught my attention is the use of Accept and Reject activities for managing approvals.
This is an ActivityPub issue more than anything else. The "spec" is clear that the side-effects are to be determined by the type of the Object. There is no other indication, you effectively must check the type of the Object referenced. And I think that is correct, the same way Mastodon is correct in its usage of these two Activity types.
If you split the type for other Accept/Reject Activities, like AcceptFeatured or whatever, you are still left with more type determining logic anyway [at least in function non-pattern matching languages :)]. You just moved it somewhere else instead.
---Reply---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-06-14 21:13:01)
@phnt With AcceptFeatured you don't need to determine anything. Because the object type is right here in the activity name
Reply
---Replies---
Phantasm@phnt@fluffytail.org (2026-06-14 21:28:22)
@silverpill You ideally should verify that AcceptFeatured refers to the type of the Object as expected, effectively doing the same thing anyway. You also need to add that as a supported type to your Acccept/Reject validator since they are basically the same, you have to modify your activity builder, if you have one, to create these new types if you wish to support creation and not just ingestion.
So instead of some long switch/case statement on an Object type, you now have a long list of Accept*/Reject* types that all have the same semantics just operating on different types. And more handling in your validators/builders.
The same argument can be made about Create/Update Activities which operate on a bunch of Object types. CreateNote/UpdateNote/UpdateActor/... doesn't make sense in my head as well.
Raphael Lullis@raphael@mastodon.communick.com (2026-06-14 22:01:45)
@silverpill @phnt
What is the practical difference between having to agree on the meaning of "Type + verb" vs "VerbType"?