Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
053cefbce4
The relay is asked what it is, and the answer went nowhere. SiteConfig is a
data class whose only constructor property was `baseUrl`; `discovered` was a
`var` in the body, so the generated equals() ignored it. MutableStateFlow
conflates on equality, which made
_site.value = config.also { it.discovered = found }
a no-op against the value already there. The descriptor was fetched correctly
and discarded. The sign-in screen sat on "Checking what this server uses…"
forever — the one line whose whole job is to say, BEFORE the passphrase is
typed, whether that passphrase leaves the device — and accountProvider stayed
LOCAL for a relay that had just answered SHARED. Now a constructor property,
written with copy(), with the first JVM unit tests the :app module has ever
had. Confirmed live: the screen reads "One Flamenet account, shared with
Flamenet Files."
Two XCUITest queries matched more than one element and so could tap neither:
- "👍" is in the emoji picker's Gestures row, in its Recent row once picked,
and in ChatView's quick-reaction bar. Picker buttons now carry a
section-scoped identifier.
- "Sign out" is both the row in ProfileView and the destructive button in the
confirmation it opens; SwiftUI keeps both in the tree, so the query was
ambiguous before the dialog was even reached. Both now identified.
Neither was load — both fail the same way on an idle machine.
Also adds completeSignIn to UITestSupport, the counterpart to completeSignUp.
Sign-ups are rate limited at three an hour per address, so a test that only
needs AN identity should reuse one rather than mint another and fail with a
429 that reads like a broken sign-up screen. CrossPlatformUITests takes
FN_TEST_PASSWORD and signs in when given one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Flamenet Messenger — Android
Nothing here is an app yet. This is the engine, and it is deliberately first.
An Android client needs the protocol implemented a third time. That third
implementation is the one that finds the places where the specification says
less than the two existing engines quietly agreed on — but only if it is
written against the spec and the published vectors rather than against a
reading of our own Swift and JavaScript. So the engine comes first, it is a
plain Kotlin/JVM library with no Android in it at all, and it is held to
engine/test/vectors/protocol-v1.json — the same file the other two engines
are checked against, read from that one location rather than copied here.
./gradlew :engine:test
No Android SDK, no emulator, no device. It runs anywhere a JVM does, which is also what lets it run in CI on Linux.
What the engine covers today
| Area | Spec | State |
|---|---|---|
| Safety numbers | §7 | Done — fingerprints and conversation ordering match the published vectors |
| Key transparency verification | §19 | Done — RFC 6962 leaf/node hashing, unbalanced split, bottom-up audit paths |
| Byte helpers | — | Unsigned comparison, constant-time equality |
What it does not cover
Listed rather than left to be discovered, because a table of green ticks with the hard parts quietly missing is worse than no table:
| Area | Spec | State |
|---|---|---|
| X25519 / Ed25519 | §3 | Not started — needs a provider that works on both JVM and Android |
| X3DH key agreement | §4 | Not started |
| Double Ratchet | §6 | Not started |
| Sealed sender | §12 | Not started |
| ML-KEM-768 hybrid | §11 | Not started |
| ML-DSA-65 identities | §20 | Not started |
| Relay client | §8 | Not started |
| The app itself | — | Not started |
Until those exist, Android is honestly marked "not started" on the website, and a conversation gets the protocol's guarantees only when both ends are iOS.
Why the vectors matter more than the code
Two implementations that agree may both be wrong in the same way, especially when one was written while reading the other. The audit-path ordering in §19 is the worked example: a top-down reading of a bottom-up path produces the correct root for every left-spine index, so it passes any test that only checks index 0. The vector file pins a right-descending index for that reason, and the Kotlin tests assert both that the published path verifies and that the same path reversed does not.
If this engine ever disagrees with the file, the interesting question is which of the three is wrong — not this one by default.