Append timestamp to messages #68

New Issue

Open

opened 2019-06-10 09:49:30 +00:00 by b3yond · 3 comments

b3yond commented

2019-06-10 09:49:30 +00:00

Owner

Author: @git-sid Posted at: 21.12.2018 14:18

I'd be great to append the timestamp to the message itself. At the moment, messages take ~8 minutes to reach the end user. With timestamps we could at least work around this problem until it is fixed.

Author: @git-sid Posted at: 21.12.2018 14:18 I'd be great to append the timestamp to the message itself. At the moment, messages take ~8 minutes to reach the end user. With timestamps we could at least work around this problem until it is fixed.

b3yond added the

good first issue

enhancement

labels 2019-06-10 09:49:30 +00:00

b3yond commented

2019-06-10 09:49:30 +00:00

Poster

Owner

Author: @b3yond Posted at: 24.12.2018 10:16

Sometimes people add manual timestamps, because they can only now report an event which was 20 minutes ago. We need to check whether a message already has a timestamp before appending one.

Author: @b3yond Posted at: 24.12.2018 10:16 Sometimes people add manual timestamps, because they can only now report an event which was 20 minutes ago. We need to check whether a message already has a timestamp before appending one.

b3yond commented

2019-06-10 09:49:31 +00:00

Poster

Owner

Author: @git-sid Posted at: 27.12.2018 11:38

actually we don't have to.
If a person reports an event that happened 20 minutes ago, i would still take x time to be shared. The message would therefore still be out if sync; even with timestamp.
We need to take the time of the message object and use that as timestamp

Author: @git-sid Posted at: 27.12.2018 11:38 actually we don't have to. If a person reports an event that happened 20 minutes ago, i would still take x time to be shared. The message would therefore still be out if sync; even with timestamp. We need to take the time of the message object and use that as timestamp

b3yond commented

2019-06-10 09:49:31 +00:00

Poster

Owner

Author: @b3yond Posted at: 06.01.2019 14:59

ah now I understand what you mean:

person sees controllers at 12:00
person tweets about it at 12:20
ticketfrei retweets at 12:25

With your proposal to timestamp everything, out of the tweet 1200 controllers at $place would become 12:20 1200 controllers at $place. It would appear at 12:25.

I think the person always knows better than ticketfrei when the controls happened. Meaning:

if the person already posted a timestamp, we should not add one.
Also, if the report happened not longer than a minute ago, we could leave out the timestamps.

In any other case, let's append a timestamp.

Author: @b3yond Posted at: 06.01.2019 14:59 ah now I understand what you mean: 1. person sees controllers at 12:00 2. person tweets about it at 12:20 3. ticketfrei retweets at 12:25 With your proposal to timestamp everything, out of the tweet `1200 controllers at $place` would become `12:20 1200 controllers at $place`. It would appear at 12:25. I think the person always knows better than ticketfrei when the controls happened. Meaning: * if the person already posted a timestamp, we should not add one. * Also, if the report happened not longer than a minute ago, we could leave out the timestamps. In any other case, let's append a timestamp.