Nostr Web Client

1. Yes.

2. I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think its always worth having the relay hints in the 30317 event but if they are ommited, then fallback methods of identifying relays are used.

3. I think the original NostrUrlDecodeed struct is better with an extra `nip05: Option`property'. Whenever a url is decoded it should use an async parse function. Its a pain to pass around a version of the struct with so many optional properties which is barely useful without finding the pubkey.

Lez 1y ago

2. I called "repo relays" the "relays" tag value in the 30317 event, and "relay hint" the relay in the nostr remote URL, like: nostr://nip05/relay.hint/identifier

How will gitworkshop.dev find out which URL to show in the green "clone" dropdown? (nostr://nip05/relay.hint/identifier, or nostr://nip05/identifier? - or one of the npub / nevent / naddr variant?)

3. Fine, but then we need to add an "identifier: Option" member, too. Because we can't store it anywhere else until we haven't resolved the nip05 to a pubkey.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DanConwayDev 1y ago

2. Ah, I hadn't considered that the maintainer may want to express a view on whether contributors should use the nip05 or npub in the clone url.

I planned on it being a user preference and hadn't landed on a default for gitworkshop.dev.

Now we are on the topic of maintainers expressing a view, it's also conceivable that projects may want to suggest a generic project nip05 which may point to different maintainers over time as the project evolves.

Increasing reliance on DNS just feels a bit dirty and unsatisfactory, but I can see the easier UX.

Why don't we start off by adding basic support first, without adding anything to `30317`, and see what the feedback is like?

3. I'm not sure that we do. I've created this to demonstrate why not:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqx2ypzpgqgmmc409hm4xsdd74sf68a2uyf9pwel4g9mfdg8l5244t6x4jdqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmny9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsqgzuxrs7ewutcjhy2k5nfghp9828u4ds5s80jtt6ud55uu2t5ntfe53rrwl2

Lez 1y ago

2. I'm fine by doing an MVP, let's not touch the 30317 for now. I think increasing UX is more important here. Especially that by the authorities taking the DNS they achieve nothing a.) it's a news flash for the project b.) somebody trusted will point a new nip05 to the project c.) educating the public it's a dependency d.) still being able to use the npub/naddr remote, which ngit could support out of the box (as all the info is cached in a checked out repo)

Lez 1y ago

Technical feedback: from nostrudel if I press "open on gitworkshop.dev", it tries to open nevent1qvzqqqqx2ypzpgqgmmc409hm4xsdd74sf68a2uyf9pwel4g9mfdg8l5244t6x4jdqqs9cv8pajach39wg4dfxj3wz2w50e2mpfqwlykh4cmffec5hfxknngf2ef2k there, which shows an error.

If I go through https://nostrapp.link/#nevent1qvzqqqqx2ypzpgqgmmc409hm4xsdd74sf68a2uyf9pwel4g9mfdg8l5244t6x4jdqqs9cv8pajach39wg4dfxj3wz2w50e2mpfqwlykh4cmffec5hfxknngf2ef2k?select=true it will open https://gitworkshop.dev/e/nevent1qqs9cv8pajach39wg4dfxj3wz2w50e2mpfqwlykh4cmffec5hfxknngzyzsq3hh327t0h2dq6matqn5064cgj2zanl2stkj6s0lg4t2h5dty67t3mez - which works.

I'll check the patch now. :)