matrix.org/static/jira/browse/SYIOS-108

70 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext

---
summary: I can't re-enter existing chats when tapping through contact details
---
assignee: gforet
created: 2015-03-13 18:22:37.0
creator: matthew
description: |-
To reproduce:
1. tap on an avatar in a groupchat of a user you already have a 1:1 convo with
2. on their contact details page, tap 'start chat'.
3. nothing happens.
id: '11223'
key: SYIOS-108
number: '108'
priority: '1'
project: '10200'
reporter: matthew
resolution: '1'
resolutiondate: 2015-03-16 10:44:15.0
status: '5'
type: '1'
updated: 2015-03-16 10:44:15.0
votes: '0'
watches: '2'
workflowId: '11323'
---
actions:
- author: jan
body: This is similar to the web interface, where a separate chat with the same person is started. See SYWEB-324
created: 2015-03-13 20:12:20.0
id: '11388'
issue: '11223'
type: comment
updateauthor: jan
updated: 2015-03-13 20:12:20.0
- author: matthew
body: |-
It's actually a bit different - iOS already tries to have the 'right' functionality of reusing existing chats. It just gets it wrong in this particular UI flow.
Separately, we do want to support having multiple 1:1 chats with the same user if you really want to - but agreed this should not remotely be the default behaviour.
created: 2015-03-13 20:31:41.0
id: '11389'
issue: '11223'
type: comment
updateauthor: matthew
updated: 2015-03-13 20:31:52.0
- author: jan
body: |-
> we do want to support having multiple 1:1 chats with the same user if you really want to
What would be the use case though?
created: 2015-03-13 20:38:28.0
id: '11390'
issue: '11223'
type: comment
updateauthor: jan
updated: 2015-03-13 20:38:28.0
- author: matthew
body: |-
a) Separating conversation threads. For instance, I might want to entirely separate my social and professional conversations with someone on my team at work.
b) Supporting bridging to other chat ecosystems which already have this semantics - e.g. in Lync, you can open multiple conversations with the same person for different topics. To bridge to Lync, we need to support the same.
Agreed we should not be doing it by default though.
created: 2015-03-13 20:42:49.0
id: '11391'
issue: '11223'
type: comment
updateauthor: matthew
updated: 2015-03-13 20:42:49.0