so, suggestion, do the same thing reblogs do, so this isn't just fixed on the API side but on the federation side too:
https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/6ee779a072c48ef81541cb895dfba873cc1b00d5/app/models/status.rb#L426-L428
and
https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/blob/6ee779a072c48ef81541cb895dfba873cc1b00d5/app/models/status.rb#L237

(it's also less code :P)

I thought it's the same thing, I just put it in the creation service instead of a pre-save macro.

You say this belongs in the model instead?

it's not the same thing. I can still send a s2s Create of a Note that is inReplyTo a boost. I think it's better in the model, because it fixes it in all cases, not just this single edge case.

That's my lack of understanding then. Gonna adjust.

Moved to model.

@nightpool @ThibG Thoughts? I'm not sure replying to boosts is a bug, we certainly aren't taking advantage of it in the UI, but I'm not sure if we never will.

hmm. I'm worried that by merging this, we'd be encouraging client developers to be loose about boost/original IDs in other places as well.

however, since we already do this for boosting posts, maybe there's an argument that we should do it for replies for symmetry

I don't have any strong feelings about this, but I'd like to make some points:

• validating user input doesn't mean encouraging invalid input
• the current behaviour results in unexpected UX on the front
• it's literally a one-line change so if you ever want to implement separate conversation threads for boosts it's no effort to revert

I'm fine with this. We aren't storing AP objects anyway, it makes sense to change this in the model for our purposes.