Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
28d10bec4d
Two bugs from testing on the emulator, one of them mine from this morning. ## "Erase and start fresh" erased nothing 🔴 The `VaultUnreadable` screen — shown when the keys on this phone cannot be opened — offered exactly one action, and it called `model::signOut`. `signOut` defaults to `erasingDevice = false`: the door that deliberately KEEPS the device so coming back is silent. So it set the phase to SignedOut, left the unreadable vault exactly where it was, and the next `restore()` opened it, failed again, and came straight back to the same screen. ⚠️ It looked like it worked, because the screen changed. That is the whole problem with a recovery action that does not recover: the feedback IS the claim, and the person only finds out when they try to sign in and land back where they started. Which is what happened, twice, to the person testing it. `discardUnreadableVault()` destroys the vault, opens a fresh one, and lands on sign-in with a sentence saying what happened and that contacts will see the security keys change. Deliberately NOT `signOut(erasingDevice = true)`, which would also have worked: that path first tries to revoke the device on the relay using a session that by definition does not exist here, and its comments are about handing a phone on. The keys are already lost; the only question is whether the app can get past them. Three tests, in the same source-scan shape as `DestructiveLabelsTest`. Falsified: putting `model::signOut` back fails with the reason spelled out. ## Black text on the dark ground 🔴 `Surface(color = Color.Transparent)` with no `contentColor`. Material derives it with `contentColorFor(color)`, which has no answer for Transparent and returns Unspecified — so `LocalContentColor` falls back to its own default, which is BLACK. Every `Text` that does not name a colour of its own drew black on the dark ground. ⚠️ It read as "some of the text is hard to read" rather than as a broken theme, because everything that DOES set a colour was fine and only the inheriting ones went dark. That is what made it easy to ship: the screens I looked at longest were the ones that name their colours. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Flamenet Messenger — Android
The Android app, and the two libraries under it.
engine/ the protocol: X3DH, Double Ratchet, sealed sender, safety numbers,
key transparency. Plain Kotlin/JVM — no Android in it at all.
client/ the relay transport: HTTP, auth, the §8 routes.
app/ the Compose app.
interop/ the cross-engine driver; not shipped.
engine and client are deliberately plain JVM libraries. The protocol has
nothing to do with Android, and keeping it off the platform means their tests
run anywhere a JVM does — no SDK, no emulator, no device, which is also what
lets them gate in CI on Linux:
./gradlew :engine:test :client:test
The app's own unit tests need the Android SDK but still no emulator (Robolectric):
./gradlew :app:testDebugUnitTest
Where it stands
PARITY.md is the definition of done for this app — read that, not this. Every row there names the iOS file it came from so it can be re-checked rather than trusted. Headlines as of 2026-08-28: messaging, groups, attachments, voice notes, stories, calls, sealed sender, key transparency and the encrypted vault are built and tested; a cross-platform round trip against iOS was verified on 2026-08-26.
⚠️ This file said "Nothing here is an app yet" until 2026-08-28, above a tree containing the finished app — the README described the repository as it was when the engine landed and nothing updated it as the app grew around it. If a claim here ever disagrees with PARITY.md or with the tree, believe those, and fix this.
Why the engine came first, and is held to the vectors
An Android client needs the protocol implemented a third time, and the 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 is held to
test/vectors/protocol-v1.json in
flamenet-e2e — the same file the
other two engines are checked against, read from that repository rather than
copied here, because a copied vector file drifts and a drifting vector file
stops being a check. PublishedVectorsTest looks for it beside this checkout
and fails loudly if it cannot find it; FLAMENET_VECTORS overrides the search.
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.
Contributing and security
- CONTRIBUTING.md — building (JDK 21,
JAVA_HOMEis not optional on a Mac), the test gate, and the platform traps that cost an hour each. - PARITY.md — what iOS does, what this does, and what is left. It is the definition of done for this app.
- SECURITY.md — threat model and where to send a vulnerability report. Not an issue tracker matter: security@flamenetmessenger.com.