Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

add support for extended addressing (xep-0033) #185

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

add support for extended addressing (xep-0033) #185

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions include/escalus.hrl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,3 +27,11 @@
event_client :: any(),
props :: list()
}).

-record(extaddress, {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe I'm limited or sth but I think that using a map here would simplify developer's life when it comes to debugging (which is quite common part of our day to day life :) ). The map could have it's own type with required and optional type.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have nothing against maps, they are so useful when you need flexibility. But when I know for sure what the data structure is supposed to contain I prefer records, they make code so much more readable.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

they make code so much more readable

I'd say the same about maps :) plus they make debugging so much nicer :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do they give you code completion?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually I don't use code completion so I don't care :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This case is not a big deal, so if it is your strict requirement then fine, I can change it to a map. But, really, we should give it a serious though. From what I know, our coding guidelines do not say "never use records", but the practice seems to be heading in that direction. I'd suggest we make some effort to formulate a common approach, stating which data structure should/can be applied in which cases, to avoid such tensions in the future.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not a strict requirement, note that I didn't request for changes, just commented in the review :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, got it. Can it be merged, then?

type = to :: to | cc | bcc | replyto | replyroom | noreply | ofrom,
desc :: binary() | undefined,
jid :: binary() | undefined,
uri :: binary() | undefined,
node :: binary() | undefined
}).
37 changes: 34 additions & 3 deletions src/escalus_stanza.erl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ error_element(Type, Condition) ->

-spec message(From, Recipient, Type, Msg) -> exml:element() when
From :: undefined | binary(),
Recipient :: escalus_utils:jid_spec(),
Recipient :: escalus_utils:jid_spec() | {escalus_utils:jid_spec(), [escalus_utils:extaddress()]},
Type :: binary(),
Msg :: binary().
message(From, Recipient, Type, Msg) when is_atom(Recipient) ->
Expand All @@ -308,11 +308,42 @@ message1(From, Recipient, Type, Msg) ->
undefined -> [];
_ -> [{<<"from">>, From}]
end,
{To, AdrsElement} = case Recipient of
{MulticastService, Addresses} ->
{MulticastService, [make_address_block(Addresses)]};
_ ->
{Recipient, []}
end,
#xmlel{name = <<"message">>,
attrs = FromAttr ++ [{<<"type">>, Type},
{<<"to">>, escalus_utils:get_jid(Recipient)}],
{<<"to">>, escalus_utils:get_jid(To)}],
children = [#xmlel{name = <<"body">>,
children = [#xmlcdata{content = Msg}]}]}.
children = [#xmlcdata{content = Msg}]}]
++ AdrsElement
}.

make_address_block(AdrList) ->
#xmlel{name = <<"addresses">>, attrs = [{<<"xmlns">>, ?NS_ADDRESS}],
children = lists:map(fun make_address_element/1, AdrList)}.

make_address_element(Jid) when is_binary(Jid) ->
make_address_element(#extaddress{jid = Jid});
make_address_element(#extaddress{} = Eadr) ->
Attrs = [{<<"type">>, to_type(Eadr#extaddress.type)},
{<<"jid">>, Eadr#extaddress.jid},
{<<"uri">>, Eadr#extaddress.uri},
{<<"node">>, Eadr#extaddress.node},
{<<"desc">>, Eadr#extaddress.desc}],
ValidAttrs = lists:filter(fun({_, undefined}) -> false; (_) -> true end, Attrs),
#xmlel{name = <<"address">>, attrs = ValidAttrs, children = []}.

to_type(to) -> <<"to">>;
to_type(cc) -> <<"cc">>;
to_type(bcc) -> <<"bcc">>;
to_type(replyto) -> <<"replyto">>;
to_type(replyroom) -> <<"replyroom">>;
to_type(noreply) -> <<"noreply">>;
to_type(ofrom) -> <<"ofrom">>.

chat_to(Recipient, Msg) ->
message(undefined, Recipient, <<"chat">>, Msg).
Expand Down