Closed Sophira closed 6 years ago
I agree! This is definitely necessary and reusing the syntax makes sense. If you are going to work on it, I'll provide all the help I can! Perhaps adding the CW for new posts would be a good first step.
The starting point would be mastodon_post_message
in mastodon.c
. You need to parse message
. Ideally, you'd have a cw
pointer pointing at the beginning of the CW (at the address of "S" in "Summary text here"), then you'd overwrite the "]" with a null, and advance message
to the "R" in "Reply text here".
Next, you'd have to add cw
to the parameters of mastodon_post_status
and add it to the request using the spoiler_text
attribute, according to the API.
You probably need to experiment a bit when it comes to the sensitive
attribute. Is required as well, and if so, what do you need to set it to?
Please work on this! :smile:
I'm starting to think that if this works, we could use something similar for visibility: @kensanata: [direct] hello
and then in the reply we would reuse the same visibility unless something else was specified.
Currently there's no way (so far as I can tell) to use the content warning summary in Mastodon when posting a toot from bitlbee-mastodon. This is a particular problem when replying to toots that have a content warning as the summary gets dropped in the reply and the reply is displayed to everyone.
I think the easiest way to use it would be to copy the syntax used when displaying a toot with a summary: Have the user put
[CW: Summary text here]
before sending a new tweet with the flag enabled.It would also be good if the CW summary text was retained when replying to a toot by default, as on Mastodon itself. It should also be possible to modify the use of a CW when replying to a toot, too, in the same way:
reply 56 [CW: Summary text here] Reply text here
should be able to turn on (or change the summary text of, if already enabled) the content warning with the chosen text.I'm not sure of a good UI method for turning the default off for a toot with CWs enabled though; using
[CW: ]
should probably be supported for user expectation purposes but it's kind of ugly. (I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason why you'd want to turn it off, but being able to do so is important.)I may give this a go myself but I'm not sure. Maybe I should work on smaller issues first, heh.