Skip to content

Conversation

@JoFrost
Copy link
Contributor

@JoFrost JoFrost commented Dec 5, 2025

Hello! This PR exposes power-level thresholds in OtherState::RoomPowerLevels for the FFI timeline.

It includes action requirements such as ban, kick, invite, redact, state_default, events_default, per-event overrides and notifications. This gives FFI clients direct access to the effective power levels of a room, which were previously unavailable.

  • Public API changes documented in changelogs (optional)

Signed-off-by:

@JoFrost JoFrost requested a review from a team as a code owner December 5, 2025 09:29
@JoFrost JoFrost requested review from poljar and removed request for a team December 5, 2025 09:29
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.59%. Comparing base (cd9f433) to head (4c59282).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5931      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.59%   88.59%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         364      364              
  Lines      104341   104341              
  Branches   104341   104341              
==========================================
- Hits        92438    92437       -1     
- Misses       7537     7539       +2     
+ Partials     4366     4365       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 5, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #5931 will not alter performance

Comparing JoFrost:main (4c59282) with main (cd9f433)

Summary

✅ 50 untouched

@JoFrost
Copy link
Contributor Author

JoFrost commented Dec 16, 2025

Hello @poljar! Quick check on this PR.

I wanted to confirm whether this aligns with the intended API direction, or if you’d prefer to wait for #5937 to be merged and then have this rebased on top of it.
If this approach doesn’t hit the mark, I’m happy to close the PR.

Thanks.

@poljar
Copy link
Contributor

poljar commented Dec 17, 2025

I wanted to confirm whether this aligns with the intended API direction, or if you’d prefer to wait for #5937 to be merged and then have this rebased on top of it.

Yes, let's do that, I don't think there's much blocking #5937 so it should be merged soon™.

@JoFrost
Copy link
Contributor Author

JoFrost commented Dec 21, 2025

All done @poljar. I rebased on main, and used what was introduced in #5937 for this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants