[bug] Mastodon API: Repeat/Reblog statuses have duplicated content #450
Labels
No labels
approved, awaiting change
bug
configuration
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
extremely low priority
feature request
Fix it yourself
help wanted
invalid
mastodon_api
needs docs
needs tests
not a bug
planned
pleroma_api
privacy
question
static_fe
triage
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: AkkomaGang/akkoma#450
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Your setup
OTP
Extra details
first installed Pleroma through OTP, then converted to Akkoma according to docs
Version
3.5.0-0-gd9508474b
PostgreSQL version
12
What were you trying to do?
When trying out Elk Canary (https://elk.zone/) I noticed that reblog/repeat statuses have duplicated content, like here:
URL of the depicted status: https://mastodon.social/users/KatM/statuses/109750713926989417
At first, I believed this to be a bug in Elk, but it looks like it's a problem in the Mastodon API.
So, bear with me, as my web development skills are stuck in 2009. When the status in question comes in as JSON from the API, it appears that
status.content
is identical tostatus.reblog.content
. Elk then assumes, this means it's a "reblog with comment" type of action and displays them both.You could argue that's Elk's problem, but (1) Mastodon seems to behave differently and (2) duplicated content is a waste of space.
What did you expect to happen?
When
status.reblog.content
is set, the API should not populatestatus.content
unless they're different.What actually happened?
status.content
was an identical duplicatestatus.reblog.content
Logs
No response
Severity
I cannot use it as easily as I'd like
Have you searched for this issue?
hm, looks like this was caused by mastodon changing its implementation rather than an actual "bug" in the strict sense of the word - masto 3 filled in the content field
but i agree that we should match masto4 behaviour