Skip to content

refactor: Unify naming of direct/single/1:1/normal chats - #8442

Merged
j-g00da merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats
Jul 27, 2026
Merged

refactor: Unify naming of direct/single/1:1/normal chats#8442
j-g00da merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats

Conversation

@j-g00da

@j-g00da j-g00da commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Unifies internal naming of single/direct/1:1/normal chats
to match the naming used in the API.

Closes: #8368
Signed-off-by: Jagoda Ślązak jslazak@jslazak.com

@r10s

r10s commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

renaming documentation and internals is fine.

but renaming existing external api is a different thing - that tends to cause troubles on many ends, that are not foreseeable yet. we had that in the past as well, where we also thought it is a simple change ... good apis are stable - and there are loooots of inconsistencies wrt naming, not just that one, we should not not open that can of worms :)

@Hocuri

Hocuri commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Yes, the API will need to stay as-is for now, because coordinating with all clients is a lot of effort. Probably it still makes sense to internally use the name "private chat", but alternatively we could decide for "single chat" because this is what the APIs are using.

BTW, to explain the social practices to you @j-g00da: we're usually giving @r10s and @nicodh a veto right over any API changes, because they are the ones who need to oversee the adaption of the UI implementation (@r10s for Android and iOS, @nicodh for Desktop, even if they're not always implementing it themselves). (Of course a veto right doesn't mean that we can't discuss.) That's why I requested a review from @r10s on #8408 and #8409. If the API change was less straightforward, I would also have requested a review from @nicodh.

@j-g00da

j-g00da commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Yeah I wondered if we really want to break the API, this is a lot of breaking changes.

@j-g00da

j-g00da commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

So we have two options, either internally rename to "direct" but leave "single" on the API boundary or rename everything to "single".

I really prefer "direct" as it fits better, but I think for consistency it makes sense to just rename everything to "single"...

@j-g00da
j-g00da force-pushed the j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats branch from 2bcbc9e to 73beab3 Compare July 23, 2026 08:25
@Hocuri

Hocuri commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Personally, I don't really mind which of these options we choose. @link2xt do you have an opinion?

@j-g00da
j-g00da force-pushed the j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats branch 7 times, most recently from fa3505e to ba1fa9f Compare July 23, 2026 09:28
Comment thread src/stats.rs Outdated
@j-g00da
j-g00da force-pushed the j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats branch 2 times, most recently from fc43b3c to 17084f6 Compare July 23, 2026 09:39
@j-g00da

j-g00da commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I still have to do some self-review, but I changed it to single. My only doubt related to it is that it can sometimes sound a bit ambiguous if what we mean by a single chat is a chat with one person or a just one chat.

@j-g00da
j-g00da force-pushed the j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats branch 2 times, most recently from 80d833f to d674888 Compare July 23, 2026 10:14
@j-g00da j-g00da changed the title WIP: refactor: Unify naming of direct/single/1:1 chats refactor: Unify naming of direct/single/1:1/normal chats Jul 23, 2026
@j-g00da
j-g00da marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2026 10:15
@j-g00da
j-g00da requested a review from Hocuri July 23, 2026 11:04

@link2xt link2xt left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have not checked if there is anything left, but read the whole diff.

Renaming to match the API looks good, i'd also prefer "direct chat", but only if starting from scratch.

j-g00da added 2 commits July 27, 2026 11:34
Unifies internal naming of single/direct/1:1/normal chats
to match the naming used in the API.

Closes: #8368
Signed-off-by: Jagoda Ślązak <jslazak@jslazak.com>
Signed-off-by: Jagoda Ślązak <jslazak@jslazak.com>
@j-g00da
j-g00da force-pushed the j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats branch from bbe32d5 to bdf0bef Compare July 27, 2026 09:34
@j-g00da

j-g00da commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I found some more, added it in separate commit: bdf0bef

@j-g00da
j-g00da merged commit afb1d0d into main Jul 27, 2026
31 checks passed
@j-g00da
j-g00da deleted the j-g00da/refactor-direct-chats branch July 27, 2026 14:31
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.

Unify naming of a "one to one chat"

4 participants