Darn. I've updated some tag parsing stuff in the last few releases. Any idea if you had done a hard refresh this morning before posting?
oh interesting.. I relied on Coracle and it creates a post that "mentions" the root. nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9rhwden5te0wfjkcctev93xcefwdaexwtcpzdmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82c303dhy7r is this right? https://www.nostr.guru/e/2450ea9d388307fc6ccc2f0715da73215b9a7322dc4b8623171d55f131943618
Discussion
Ok, sorry about that guys, I've just pushed a fix that handles this scenario. L's client marked the root "reply" instead of "root", which isn't what the spec says. What client are you using?
Me? Amethyst.
It has the option to exclude some users in the parent comment tree from the reply. So I thought it might be that or something 's wrong.
nostr:nprofile1qqsyvrp9u6p0mfur9dfdru3d853tx9mdjuhkphxuxgfwmryja7zsvhqprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3qamnwvaz7tmp9ehx7uewd3hkctcvp44uu can you confirm my diagnosis is correct?
Amethyst is just confused on the tags. It's not related to the exclusion of users from the new post screen. I will see if I can make this work even with this weird mention + root issue.
Oh, please don't — that was a bug which I've now fixed. The root (haha) problem I believe was amethyst not following NIP 10 correctly, which says:
> Those marked with "reply" denote the id of the reply event being responded to. Those marked with "root" denote the root id of the reply thread being responded to. For top level replies (those replying directly to the root event), only the "root" marker should be used. Those marked with "mention" denote a quoted or reposted event id.
I *think* Amethyst does the opposite for top level replies.