Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
59fa88c2ad
"Undelivered - will send" on a group bubble was a lie: group text and group stickers recorded PENDING when members were unreachable and nothing queued them. The 1:1 outbox could not be stretched over it - a group send fails per member - so the entry grew the thread it restates, and the design questions got answers instead of a shrug: WHO is queued: exactly the members nothing reached. Group text reads them out of the failure map, where the no-device guard files them as "user:<id>"; the sticker loop sees per-member results directly. A member whose devices took the message is NOT queued - resending to them would duplicate it. WHERE it restates: the group thread, carried on the entry. Restating threadForUser(member) would touch a 1:1 thread that may not even exist. WHEN the bubble flips: only when the LAST queued member is reached. Flipping on the first success would mark the message delivered while other members are still owed it - "will send" would quietly stop being true for exactly the people it was still true for. Until the set drains, PENDING remains the honest label, because the queue genuinely will keep sending. The test walks the whole rule: two members away, one returns (bubble still PENDING, one entry left), the second returns (bubble DELIVERED, group thread redrawn, the prose body not replaced by the wire form). ⚠️ iOS sends to groups too (sendGroupText/sendGroupImage) and still has no group outbox - it stays on the roadmap with this as the reference implementation. Engine, client and app suites green; seven outbox tests. 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
engine/test/vectors/protocol-v1.json, the same file the other two engines are
checked against.
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.