Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
f90c6477bb
🔴 **Three separate defects, and calling could not work past any of them.** Found by tapping the Call button, which is not covered by any test. **1. The button did nothing.** `requestCall` sets `callPrivacyPrompt`, and the only thing that renders it is `CallBanner` — which was composed inside `SignedIn`, the HOME screen. The chat screen REPLACES that. So the only Call button in the app set a flag nothing was on screen to show, and since the prompt gates placing the call, calling could not be started at all. The button looked simply dead. That also means an incoming call arriving while somebody was reading a thread displayed nothing — directly against the comment above it, which says an incoming call must be visible whatever screen somebody is on. CallBanner is now hoisted above the screen switch. **2. Placing a call SIGABRTed the process.** The manifest never declared ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE. WebRTC's NetworkMonitor calls ConnectivityManager.getNetworkState() on its own network thread, that throws without the permission, and the JNI layer immediately asserts RTC_CHECK(!env->ExceptionCheck()) — turning a Java exception into abort(). No AndroidRuntime trace, nothing catchable, the process just vanishes: Check failed: !env->ExceptionCheck() Fatal signal 6 (SIGABRT) in tid network_thread **3. Hanging up SIGABRTed it again, re-entrantly.** `onIceConnectionChange` treated CLOSED as a reason to hang up — but CLOSED is exactly what our own `close()` produces. So Hang up called hangUp, which closed the connection, which fired CLOSED on the signaling thread, which re-entered hangUp, which did a BLOCKING NETWORK SEND and disposed the connection it was running inside. hangUp is now re-entrancy-guarded, CLOSED is a no-op (we caused it), FAILED still hangs up, `dispose()` is guarded like the `close()` beside it already was, and the courtesy "call ended" signal is best-effort rather than something that can take the teardown down with it. The observer body cannot throw at all now, because WebRTC treats any escaping exception as fatal. Verified on the emulator: dialling brings up Mute/Hang up and the app survives both dialling and hanging up. ⚠️ Still unproven: whether AUDIO actually flows. That needs two live endpoints and a TURN server, and none is deployed. What is fixed is that calling is reachable and no longer kills the app. 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.