feat(timeline): send timeline redactions through the send queue by Johennes · Pull Request #6428 · matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk

Johennes · 2026-04-09T15:16:24Z

This makes it possible to send redactions via the send queue using Timeline::redact.

I've documented the public API Changes in the appropriate CHANGELOG.md files.
This PR was made with the help of AI.

Johennes · 2026-04-09T15:25:18Z

@bnjbvr I'm curious what you think of the API shape here?

codecov · 2026-04-09T15:35:42Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.84%. Comparing base (dab87b7) to head (4458835).
⚠️ Report is 22 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/matrix-sdk-ui/src/timeline/mod.rs	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6428      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.84%   89.84%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         378      378              
  Lines      104337   104342       +5     
  Branches   104337   104342       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits        93746    93749       +3     
+ Misses       7000     6990      -10     
- Partials     3591     3603      +12

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

codspeed-hq · 2026-04-09T15:43:00Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 50 untouched benchmarks

_{Comparing Johennes:johannes/timeline-redactions-send-queue (4458835) with main (dab87b7)}

bnjbvr · 2026-04-13T10:14:39Z

@bnjbvr I'm curious what you think of the API shape here?

Thanks for making this a draft. Honestly we're already sending all events via the send queue, so I wouldn't use a feature toggle (use_send_queue) for sending redactions, and just use the send queue all the time. (Not sure if the redaction future would be useful in this case; I'm fine with having one, if needs be!)

Johennes · 2026-04-14T15:36:52Z

+    assert_let_timeout!(Some(timeline_updates) = timeline_stream.next());
+    assert_eq!(timeline_updates.len(), 1);
+
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[0]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+
+    assert_let_timeout!(Some(timeline_updates) = timeline_stream.next());
+    assert_eq!(timeline_updates.len(), 2);
+
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[0]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[1]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+


I'm unsure why this is issued three times instead of just twice (local and remote echo of the redaction event). 🤔

I got curious about this, and found that all three items have the same "unique" ID, 0.

The first one looks like this:

TimelineItem { kind: Event( EventTimelineItem { sender: "@a:b.com", ... timestamp: 2026-04-15T09:12:45.439, content: MsgLike( MsgLikeContent { kind: Redacted, ... unredacted_item: Some( UnredactedEventTimelineItem { ... {"content":{"body":"buy my bitcoins bro","msgtype":"m.text"},"event_id":"$kZVJhqxRxGeHOpPwPTu2a9i00EiKLmYNtr4JgFaFxck","origin_server_ts":1776244365439,"sender":"@a:b.com","type":"m.room.message"}, ... kind: Remote( RemoteEventTimelineItem { event_id: "$kZVJhqxRxGeHOpPwPTu2a9i00EiKLmYNtr4JgFaFxck", ... internal_id: TimelineUniqueId( "0", ), }

and the second two are identical (at least in terms of debug formatting) and look like:

TimelineItem { kind: Event( EventTimelineItem { sender: "@a:b.com", ... timestamp: 2026-04-15T09:12:45.439, content: MsgLike( MsgLikeContent { kind: Redacted, ... unredacted_item: None, kind: Remote( RemoteEventTimelineItem { event_id: "$kZVJhqxRxGeHOpPwPTu2a9i00EiKLmYNtr4JgFaFxck", ... internal_id: TimelineUniqueId( "0", ), }

I wonder whether @bnjbvr @Hywan might know whether this is expected?

There should indeed be only two (one for the local echo, one after it's been sent by the send queue it should be saved in the event cache). If there was a fake sync mimicking the remote echo, that would explain the third one, but it's not clear here why there's a duplicate one. Wondering if this is a spurious redaction aggregation applied to the redacted item itself, or something like that 👀 If you're interested in digging deeper, that might help avoiding spurious updates.

@Johennes ideally we would work this out before merging, but since I suspect it is unrelated to your change, I could be persuaded to merge without if no-one else on the Rust team objects.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <n0-0ne+github@mailbox.org>

andybalaam

Looks good to me, but want to resolve the question you raised before merging. Thanks!

andybalaam · 2026-04-15T09:22:02Z

+    assert_let_timeout!(Some(timeline_updates) = timeline_stream.next());
+    assert_eq!(timeline_updates.len(), 1);
+
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[0]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+
+    assert_let_timeout!(Some(timeline_updates) = timeline_stream.next());
+    assert_eq!(timeline_updates.len(), 2);
+
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[0]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[1]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+


I got curious about this, and found that all three items have the same "unique" ID, 0.

The first one looks like this:

TimelineItem { kind: Event( EventTimelineItem { sender: "@a:b.com", ... timestamp: 2026-04-15T09:12:45.439, content: MsgLike( MsgLikeContent { kind: Redacted, ... unredacted_item: Some( UnredactedEventTimelineItem { ... {"content":{"body":"buy my bitcoins bro","msgtype":"m.text"},"event_id":"$kZVJhqxRxGeHOpPwPTu2a9i00EiKLmYNtr4JgFaFxck","origin_server_ts":1776244365439,"sender":"@a:b.com","type":"m.room.message"}, ... kind: Remote( RemoteEventTimelineItem { event_id: "$kZVJhqxRxGeHOpPwPTu2a9i00EiKLmYNtr4JgFaFxck", ... internal_id: TimelineUniqueId( "0", ), }

and the second two are identical (at least in terms of debug formatting) and look like:

TimelineItem { kind: Event( EventTimelineItem { sender: "@a:b.com", ... timestamp: 2026-04-15T09:12:45.439, content: MsgLike( MsgLikeContent { kind: Redacted, ... unredacted_item: None, kind: Remote( RemoteEventTimelineItem { event_id: "$kZVJhqxRxGeHOpPwPTu2a9i00EiKLmYNtr4JgFaFxck", ... internal_id: TimelineUniqueId( "0", ), }

andybalaam · 2026-04-15T09:23:56Z

+    assert_let_timeout!(Some(timeline_updates) = timeline_stream.next());
+    assert_eq!(timeline_updates.len(), 1);
+
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[0]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+
+    assert_let_timeout!(Some(timeline_updates) = timeline_stream.next());
+    assert_eq!(timeline_updates.len(), 2);
+
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[0]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+    assert_let!(VectorDiff::Set { index: 1, value: item } = &timeline_updates[1]);
+    assert!(item.as_event().unwrap().content().is_redacted());
+


I wonder whether @bnjbvr @Hywan might know whether this is expected?

Johennes force-pushed the johannes/timeline-redactions-send-queue branch 3 times, most recently from 14d5ef3 to c5effdc Compare April 9, 2026 15:24

Johennes changed the title ~~feat(timeline): optionally send redactions through the send queue~~ feat(timeline): send timeline redactions through the send queue Apr 14, 2026

Johennes force-pushed the johannes/timeline-redactions-send-queue branch from c5effdc to 7837d99 Compare April 14, 2026 15:35

Johennes commented Apr 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

feat(timeline): optionally send redactions through the send queue

4458835

Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <n0-0ne+github@mailbox.org>

Johennes force-pushed the johannes/timeline-redactions-send-queue branch from 7837d99 to 4458835 Compare April 14, 2026 15:37

Johennes marked this pull request as ready for review April 14, 2026 15:49

Johennes requested a review from a team as a code owner April 14, 2026 15:49

Johennes requested review from andybalaam and removed request for a team April 14, 2026 15:49

andybalaam approved these changes Apr 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat(timeline): send timeline redactions through the send queue#6428

feat(timeline): send timeline redactions through the send queue#6428
Johennes wants to merge 1 commit intomatrix-org:mainfrom
Johennes:johannes/timeline-redactions-send-queue

Johennes commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Johennes commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

bnjbvr commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Johennes Apr 14, 2026

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

bnjbvr Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

andybalaam left a comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

Johennes commented Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Johennes commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Uh oh!

bnjbvr commented Apr 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Johennes Apr 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bnjbvr Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

andybalaam Apr 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Johennes commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq bot commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading