indeed looks like [that cert](https://crt.sh/?id=19677831351) expired earlier today
2025-10-14 28710, 2025
julian45[m]
logging on to have a look
2025-10-14 28704, 2025
poesty has quit
2025-10-14 28741, 2025
julian45[m]
[aerozol](https://matrix.to/#/@aerozol:matrix.org)should be renewed now
2025-10-14 28740, 2025
julian45[m]
not sure what failed in the crontab that would have renewed the cert in the background ([lucifer](https://matrix.to/#/@lucifer:chatbrainz.org) thoughts?), but i was able to do a manual renewal
2025-10-14 28704, 2025
poesty joined the channel
2025-10-14 28713, 2025
aerozol[m]
Thank you!
2025-10-14 28702, 2025
lucifer[m]
<julian45[m]> "not sure what failed in the..." <- [@zas666:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@zas666:matrix.org)?
“what it means to decentralize music discovery, production and listening from capitalist economies”.
2025-10-14 28736, 2025
mayhem[m]
music to my ears!
2025-10-14 28706, 2025
adhawkins
Can the CAA API return multiple 'front' images? I see there's a boolean 'front', will that indicate the 'preferred' one if there are more than one? (been a long time since I looked at this!)
2025-10-14 28749, 2025
zas[m]
adhawkins (IRC): there are 2 things, CAA has multiple image types AND front/back
2025-10-14 28758, 2025
zas[m] sent a code block: https://matrix.chatbrainz.org/_matrix/media/v3/download/chatbrainz.org/xtzLjiXruBwEZOGieSmHdHaD
Basically multiples images can have the front type, but only one is said to be the "front" image to use.
2025-10-14 28738, 2025
adhawkins
Yeah, that was my reading zas[m], thanks. Can't see that code block (I'm on IRC). Don't suppose you know of a release with multiple 'front' images just so I can double check once I'm done?
2025-10-14 28749, 2025
zas[m]
Typical case is, for example, if you have 2 images, one with types "front+spine" and the other "front+booklet", the first one could have the "front" boolean to True.
(so, also test creation still works when it is enabled and invisible)
2025-10-14 28758, 2025
Kladky joined the channel
2025-10-14 28758, 2025
reosarevok[m]
Or will it just not work with the test suite?
2025-10-14 28743, 2025
poesty joined the channel
2025-10-14 28739, 2025
bitmap[m]
reosarevok: it's certainly possible but we don't have a way to vary the configuration between test files like that right now
2025-10-14 28747, 2025
reosarevok[m]
Fair
2025-10-14 28740, 2025
reosarevok[m]
In that case, I dunno what is best - forcing it visible seems a bit odd when it's not what we actually do, but I guess without that if it works we don't have a trivial way of knowing whether it worked because the invisible captcha passed or because we broke the captcha and it isn't there at all?
2025-10-14 28727, 2025
bitmap[m]
well for the invisible one we should be able to check that the elements are on the page at least, which would indicate it's enabled
2025-10-14 28754, 2025
bitmap[m]
the invisible mode doesn't guarantee you'll get an invisible captcha though, only if it deems you low-risk
2025-10-14 28714, 2025
bitmap[m]
there is a way to force it to be invisible with test-mode enabled
2025-10-14 28750, 2025
reosarevok[m]
Oh, so we basically cannot be 100% sure of what the test will see? Then forcing it one way or the other seems fine to me
2025-10-14 28712, 2025
reosarevok[m]
If yvanzo doesn't have a preference, then we can just force it visible if you prefer then
2025-10-14 28714, 2025
bitmap[m]
without setting lowFrictionInvisible or testmode_lowFrictionInvisible then you can't be sure
2025-10-14 28722, 2025
reosarevok[m]
I say force it one way now, add a ticket if one doesn't exist yet to allow to change these things for separate tests and eventually test both ways
2025-10-14 28741, 2025
lusciouslover has quit
2025-10-14 28703, 2025
lusciouslover joined the channel
2025-10-14 28716, 2025
bitmap[m]
relatedly, mtcaptcha hasn't helped with spam account creation in the slightest, though from the logs 99.9% of the 43,842 captchas solved since oct. 8 (note: these don't all correspond to actual account creations, just bots loading the /register page) were "valid:low-friction" (i.e. invisible)
