Chat from jabber client doesn't work more than once per session

[morgs]

If you close Chat, then there is no feedback to the Jabber client that you went away. Closing and reopening the conversation in the Jabber client doesn't initiate a new invitation or connection.

Does Chat need to close the Text Channel?

[gdesmott]

I think so, yes. By closing the channel, a new one will be created if the contact talk to you again and so it should be dispatched as a new invitation (iirc how it works in sugar).

Anyway, Chat doesn't close the channel when leaving in the muc case? If it doesn't, that's definitely a bug.

[morgs]

Fix in git for next release.

[morgs]

|TestCase|

Initiate a one to one chat from a non-sugar jabber client as documented in #6298. Close Chat on the XO. Send a further message from the jabber client. A further Chat invitation should appear to launch Chat and have further discussion.

[morgs]

Fixed in Chat-44.

[morgs]

Tested with Chat-44 on Joyride 2230.

[Charlie]

Tested in Chat-45 on Joyride 2263.

I would say that this is working now, but I just to be sure before I close the ticket: the desired behavior when the XO user declines an invite from a non-XO XMPP user is to auto-decline all subsequent chat invites from that non-XO user until Sugar is restarted?

[morgs]

Replying to Charlie:

Tested in Chat-45 on Joyride 2263. I would say that this is working now, but I just to be sure before I close the ticket: the desired behavior when the XO user declines an invite from a non-XO XMPP user is to auto-decline all subsequent chat invites from that non-XO user until Sugar is restarted?

I wasn't specifically aware of it, but it sounds like a reasonable behaviour at this point. Eben, any comments?

In the next release I'll see if I can get the invite to display the identity of the person inviting you to chat: #7869

[Eben]

Yeah, this certainly isn't desired behavior, I'd say, but I don't think it's worth waving arms about right now. We'll need to put a bit of thought into the invitation system in general (not just from external sources) and think about whether or not we need a "block" action to prevent additional invitations from a particular identity, or if "invitation spam" can be otherwise avoided.

Having the identity seems like a requisite to any reasonable solution, so we can wait on that before resolving this issue.

[kimquirk]

If there is required for this bug, it will be done in a future release.

[cjl]

The comments here read like this should be closed as fixed. If the separate issue raised in later comments is still current, a new ticket should be opened at bugs.sugarlabs.org (Chat development has migrated to SL from OLPC).

closing as fixed.