Using a supported version?

• I have searched open and closed issues for duplicates.
• I am using Signal-Desktop as provided by the Signal team, not a 3rd-party package.

Overall summary

I’ve set notes to self to disappear after 1 day. I chose one message to be pinned, was prompted to select the time to pin the message for, and selected 7 days. I was shown the message in the title.

I’m now unsure whether the message will be unpinned and removed after 1 day or 7 days. My guess would be 7 days, but either way, I think the message should make this explicit, or at least unambiguous wrt. which timer takes precedence.

Steps to reproduce

1. set notes to self to disappear after 1 day
2. send a note to yourself
3. choose to pin the message
4. select to pin the message for 7 days

Expected result

Any of these, in order of preference:

1. ”This disappearing message will be unpinned and removed from the chat after 7 days.”
2. ”This disappearing message will be unpinned and removed from the chat after 1 day.”
3. ”Disappearing messages will be unpinned and the removed from the chat when the pinning timer expires.”
4. ”Disappearing messages will be unpinned and the removed from the chat when the disappearance timer expires.”

Actual result

”Disappearing messages will be unpinned when their timer expires and the message is removed from the chat.”

Screenshots

No response

Signal version

8.7.0

Operating system

Ubuntu 24.04

Version of Signal on your phone

8.6

No worries, thanks for the fix!

Yeah, seems to be fixed: I tested in an Ubuntu 24.04 vm with WezTerm 20240203-110809-5046fc22 and couldn’t reproduce the issue.

(I first tried the nightly, which from the repository was 20260117-154428-05343b38, but that one was missing all window decorations entirely, and so couldn’t be resized at all.)

I’ll close the issue and unsubscribe, as I’m not using WezTerm currently myself. Others can reopen it if still affected.

I noticed that for the specific case of picking an element from the end using just the size of the array itself, the above is a somewhat contrived example; a plain -1 would work just as well. But I can change the example script as below, and the difference between outputs still holds:

#!/bin/bash

array=(
    "a"
    "b"
    "c"
)

i=3

value="${array[i - 1]}"

printf "%s\n" "${value}"

With the same arguments given, output differs between 3.12.0 and 3.13.0, as demonstrated in the example below. I didn’t see this mentioned directly in the release notes, so I was wondering if this is an intentional change or a bug. I don’t mind the change per se, but just wanted to be sure that it’s permanent before I adjust all my existing scripts to conform to the newer way shfmt prefers this.

$ cat asdf
#!/bin/bash

array=(
    "a"
    "b"
    "c"
)

value="${array[${#array[@]} - 1]}"

printf "%s\n" "${value}"

$ /usr/local/bin/archive/shfmt/shfmt_v3.12.0_linux_amd64 -i 4 -ci -l -d asdf # no output

$ /usr/local/bin/archive/shfmt/shfmt_v3.13.0_linux_amd64 -i 4 -ci -l -d asdf
asdf
diff asdf.orig asdf
--- asdf.orig
+++ asdf
@@ -6,6 +6,6 @@
     "c"
 )
 
-value="${array[${#array[@]} - 1]}"
+value="${array[${#array[@]}-1]}"
 
 printf "%s\n" "${value}"

Still an issue in Matheria 7.2.2.4 (server version 32.0.5).

This also manifests a bit differently when using the lock screen player: resuming playback after the call actually skips back to to the start of a previously played track instead of resuming the current one (from where you were when the call came in). The player even shows the current track title, despite playing a different one.

Steps to reproduce this variant:

1. have a directory with two audio files, 1.m4a and 2.m4a
2. start to play 2.m4u
3. lock the screen
4. call the phone (just have it ring, then hang up)
5. resume playback from the lock screen

Expected behaviour

Playback of 2.m4a resumes from where it was when the call came in

Actual behaviour

The player beings to play 1.m4a from the start (but claims to play 2.m4a)

4.7.1 was released three weeks ago, but as I’m writing this, prebuilt binaries have yet to appear on the release page. Maybe the build jobs have failed?

I’m still getting federated posts from updating old ones on my blog (with the plugin now at version 7.5.0). Not every time, but something like four out of maybe two dozen that I edited today (from 2018) have so far appeared on Mastodon.

Should I open a new report? I noticed the merged PR (above) mentions the block editor, whereas I’m using the classic editor.

What

A checkbox on the settings page to optionally disable federating updates of existing posts.

Why

Previously:

If you edit an old post, that is not yet on mastodon, then it is technically an Update Activity but it shows up on Mastodon after the Update, so Mastodon seem to handle Updates without the updated timestamp as an Create.

I edit old posts (from before installing this plugin) every now and then, and find it pretty awkward when this causes those posts to show up on Mastodon as if they were new — more so than not federating updates at all. That’s why I’d like to have that option: to be able to disable federating updates altogether.

Only federating updates for posts that have already shown up on Mastodon would be a better solution, but also a bit more complex I believe. (It’d require some way to keep track of this status, as also mentioned in the issue that the quote above is from.)

How

No response

Okay, this was a conflict between the new integration and the third party integration I had been using up until now. I did uninstall the old integration before trying to setup the new one, but apparently that wasn’t enough; I also had to manually purge all references to sleep_as_android (both old and new) from .storage/core.entity_registry. Only after that (and core restart) the setup showed the webhook URL as expected.