Post Ar17Eg4NtFg7bZ2kGe by steve@social.technoetic.com
 (DIR) More posts by steve@social.technoetic.com
 (DIR) Post #Ar0QgZmeYhoiBko3X6 by silverpill@mitra.social
       2025-02-11T10:22:48.711685Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @helge Testing an actor seems to be very straightforward. Just validate the JSON document against the schema.Serving actor documents, sending and receiving activities, signing requests and resolving webfinger - these tasks are performed by servers and clients. They can be tested too.It might look more complicated if we embrace the view that requests are made by actors (as in actor model?). But I believe this view is wrong, despite being promoted by ActivityPub specification.
       
 (DIR) Post #Ar17Eg4NtFg7bZ2kGe by steve@social.technoetic.com
       2025-02-11T16:18:15Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @silverpill @helge I think the issue is more the view that requests are *processed* by actors (versus a server). Do you know of any place in the specification that states that an actor processes the activities arriving in its inbox?I believe some of the spec authors are confusing the issue by claiming AP is based on Hewitt’s actor model.
       
 (DIR) Post #Ar17EguqkBe6EHae2q by silverpill@mitra.social
       2025-02-11T18:19:29.746488Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @steve @helge I can't find any place where specification states that activities are processed by actors. It states (on multiple occasions) that activities are delivered to actors and received by actors, but not processed. So I should probably take my word back. Still, this interpretation of the specification seems to be very common.