Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
7ad6e7be29
Trust on first use pins the peer's keys during the send itself, so before a first message the header correctly reads "No keys seen yet". sendMessage refreshed the trust badge on FAILURE — with a comment explaining that the header must not go on claiming "pinned" when a send just failed because it is not — and did not refresh it on SUCCESS, which is the case where the pin actually happens. The result: send your first message to someone and the header still says no keys have been seen, with no Safety number button, until you leave the thread and come back. On a product whose claim is that you can compare a number in person, the number was not reachable at the moment someone would look for it. Group threads are left alone — they have no single peer identity, and recomputing one into that field would produce something meaningless. Verified on an emulator against relay.flamenet.io: fresh install, fresh contact, first message, badge flips to "Keys unchanged since you met" with the Safety number button, without leaving the thread. Also, three harness fixes, all confirmed on an idle machine rather than assumed to be load: - waitInBursts in UITestSupport, for screens that never stop repainting. A single long waitForExistence holds ONE query open against a moving hierarchy; the voice recorder ticks its elapsed time, so the query never got a settled snapshot and died with "Timed out while evaluating UI query" after 231 SECONDS against a 15-second wait. That is not a timeout and does not name what went wrong. - SwiftUI puts a confirmationDialog's buttons in the tree more than once, so even a unique identifier needs .firstMatch to be tappable. - The emoji fix from the previous commit is confirmed: that test now passes. 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.