Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Try RTM API instead of in+outbound webhooks #41

Closed
leonerd opened this issue Dec 21, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Try RTM API instead of in+outbound webhooks #41

leonerd opened this issue Dec 21, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@leonerd
Copy link
Contributor

leonerd commented Dec 21, 2016

https://api.slack.com/rtm

In summary it seems:

  • We could use the RTM API to puppet for individual users who opt-in, in much the way that we're trying with the Gitter bridge.
  • Or, we could create an "app bot" account, that lets a bot user join Slack rooms. - https://api.slack.com/bot-users
@leonerd
Copy link
Contributor Author

leonerd commented Dec 21, 2016

One tiny thorn appears to be that an "app bot" account is not able to set a room topic, so Matrix->Slack topic bridging wouldn't work in this case.

@erdnaxeli
Copy link
Contributor

erdnaxeli commented Oct 1, 2017

I agree we should use RTM API, it's much more powerfull than outgoing webhook. But does an app bot can change it's avatar and username per message? I don't think so.

One idea is to use an app bot with RTM API only to get more information from message (mainly attachments), but still keep ingoing webhook to post messages.

Add a possibility for user to opt-in and puppet them would be an amazing bonus.

@ara4n
Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Oct 1, 2017

The way to do this would be to have the bridge act as a “puppeting” bridge - ie logging on with real slack credentials as a real user to mirror that user’s activity in Matrix. I think @leonerd added this to gitterbridge (but not yet deployed) but not slackbridge

@erdnaxeli
Copy link
Contributor

erdnaxeli commented Oct 2, 2017 via email

@Cadair
Copy link
Collaborator

Cadair commented Oct 8, 2018

@Half-Shot this can be closed by #89 right?

@Cadair
Copy link
Collaborator

Cadair commented Oct 8, 2018

or at least renamed to "support user puppeting"

@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor

Closing this, and making #104 for puppeting.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants