Paul HittandClaude Opus 4.8
b8ffe2ea71
A high-priority notification is a banner, not a ringing phone. On a locked device the old one showed a line of text, and the only way to act was to unlock, find the app and open it — by which time the caller has given up. A call is a live event with seconds on the clock. Now a full-screen intent with `CallStyle`, so the lock screen shows Answer and Decline. ⚠️ `CATEGORY_CALL` and `CallStyle` are not decoration: Android 14 grants USE_FULL_SCREEN_INTENT at install only to apps that ring like this, and without them the permission is refused and the call silently degrades to the banner it used to be. ⚠️ Decline is a broadcast, not an activity. The point of answering from a lock screen is that the phone stays locked for the choice the user did NOT make. 🔴 **The notification is `ongoing`**, so it cannot be swiped away by accident mid-ring — which also means it never dismisses itself, and every path that ends a call has to cancel it. Four of them: declined, answered, the caller hung up, and nobody picked up. The last has no event behind it, so the service checks for a parked offer past the dial timeout; without it the lock screen keeps offering to answer a call that is long dead. 🔴 `isStale()` asks without consuming. `take()` is the handover and can only happen once, so a staleness check built on it would swallow a live offer and drop a call that was still ringing — the exact opposite of the bug it exists to prevent. There is a test for that specifically. Answering hands off through the SAME parked offer the app already uses on launch. This session consumed the envelope, so the SDP in hand is the only copy — a second answer path would be a second way to lose a call. engine 168, client 96, app 46. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <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.