yesterday I found the same issue and was thinking of applying the
following patch:
--- muc.js (revision 0b2a3e19e7adbf510a8704c286a4a366180cdfb4)
+++ muc.js (revision )
@@ -239,6 +239,8 @@
formsubmit.c('x', {xmlns: 'jabber:x:data', type:
'submit'});
formsubmit.c('field', {'var':
'FORM_TYPE'}).c('value').t('http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#roomconfig').up().up();
formsubmit.c('field', {'var':
'muc#roomconfig_roomsecret'}).c('value').t(key).up().up();
+ // Fixes a bug in prosody 0.9.+ https://code.google.com/p/lxmppd/issues/detail?id=373
+ formsubmit.c('field', {'var':
'muc#roomconfig_whois'}).c('value').t('anyone').up().up();
// FIXME: is muc#roomconfig_passwordprotectedroom required?
this.connection.sendIQ(formsubmit,
function (res) {
WDYT?
It seems a bug in 0.9.+ version, but it is fixed in their trunk
version. And lately and because of debian submission we changed the
package to depend on prosody or prosody-trunk. https://code.google.com/p/lxmppd/issues/detail?id=373
Regards
damencho
···
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Grant Williamson <traxtopel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Damian Minkov <damencho@jitsi.org> wrote:
Hey devs,
yesterday I found the same issue and was thinking of applying the
following patch:
--- muc.js (revision 0b2a3e19e7adbf510a8704c286a4a366180cdfb4)
+++ muc.js (revision )
@@ -239,6 +239,8 @@
formsubmit.c('x', {xmlns: 'jabber:x:data', type:
'submit'});
formsubmit.c('field', {'var':
'FORM_TYPE'}).c('value').t('http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#roomconfig').up().up();
formsubmit.c('field', {'var':
'muc#roomconfig_roomsecret'}).c('value').t(key).up().up();
+ // Fixes a bug in prosody 0.9.+ https://code.google.com/p/lxmppd/issues/detail?id=373
+ formsubmit.c('field', {'var':
'muc#roomconfig_whois'}).c('value').t('anyone').up().up();
// FIXME: is muc#roomconfig_passwordprotectedroom required?
this.connection.sendIQ(formsubmit,
function (res) {
WDYT?
This will make the room non-anonymous which doesn't hurt here, because
the room is password protected anyway, so +1 from me.
Does this problem also exist with prosody stable? We still have this other
bug with prosody where the MUC would not always forward all IQs, so it
might be better if we simply fixed our dependency.
This is a bug only with prosody stable. It is fixed in prosody-trunk.
Regards
damencho
···
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
Does this problem also exist with prosody stable? We still have this other
bug with prosody where the MUC would not always forward all IQs, so it might
be better if we simply fixed our dependency.