By not overriding the initializer for an OWSNavigationController subclass,
we can use the dynamic disaptch intialization chain.
The root difficulty here is that super.init(navBarClass:) wants to call
self.init(nibNam)
* Update proto schema to reflect typing indicators.
* Sketch out OWSTypingIndicatorMessage.
* Add "online" to the service message params.
* Sketch out logic to send typing indicator messages.
* Sketch out OWSTypingIndicators class.
TODO
-[x] respect order of queue
-[x] replacements
-[x] those w/o completion handler
-[x] basic send+log operation persists
-[x] send+ui completion
-[x] share extension
-[x] update state jobs
-[x] App Lifecyle
-[x] settable
-[x] Mark as ready on startup
-[x] Fail appropriate jobs on startup
NICE TO HAVE
-[x] concurrent per senders
-[ ] longer retry (e.g. 24hrs)
-[ ] App Lifecyle
-[x] retry failed jobs on startup?
-[ ] reachability
DONE
-[x] basic passing test
-[x] datamodel
-[x] queue/classes
Because we were fetching a new thread instance, instead of updating the
existing thread instance, classes which were bound to the old thread instance
weren't updating. This affected the HeaderView.AvatarView.thread and the
ConversationStyle.thread.
- removed timestamp parameter. This wasn't totally obvious, previously we were tracking two pieces of state
1. `unreadIndicator.firstUnseenTimestamp`:
the first unseen timestamp for a conversation that exists in the database
2. `unreadIndicator.timestamp`:
the timestamp of the first interaction *after* the unread indicator that fits in the loading window
We don't actually need to track `2` because it was only used in a comparison like:
viewItem.interaction.timestampForSorting >= unreadIndicator.timestamp
But by definition, unreadIndicator.firstUnseenTimestamp is always less than or
equal to unreadIndicator.timestamp. Put into terms of the `sortId` corallary,
the sortId of the first unseen interaction in the database is always less than
or equal to the sortId of the first unseen interaction that fits in the loading
window.
In other words, there's no situation where
viewItem.interaction.sortId >= unreadIndicator.firstUnseenSortId
We were often using `timestampForLegacySorting`, which is convoluted for when
we actually just want received time.
In some sense this is a superficial change, but it's part of auditing that
we've completed moved away from timestampForLegacySorting.
Matthew Chen
Michael Kirk
Joshua Lund