Fix Undo Announce activity is not sent, when not followed by the reblogged post author

[MitarashiDango]

fix #18471

[ClearlyClaire]

This Pull Request looks correct, but I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to change the StatusReachFinder to include the author of the reblogged status. This would also require a change to ReblogService to avoid sending the ActivityPub payload twice, though.

[MitarashiDango]

When I was investigating a bug, I was planning to add a process to StatusReachFinder.
Therefore, there is no objection to the policy of unifying the processing with StatusReachFinder.

If it is not necessary to integrate the processes of ReblogStatus and RemoveStatusService as a refactoring task separate from this Pull-Request, this Pull-Request will be used to integrate the processes.

[MitarashiDango]

Merged reblog and unreblog notification processes into the StatusReachFinder.
Currently making additional corrections.

[MitarashiDango]

When sending Announce activity or Undo Announce activity, should the ID of the poster of the original post be included in the to? Or should it be included in cc?

[nightpool]

When sending Announce activity or Undo Announce activity, should the ID of the poster of the original post be included in the to? Or should it be included in cc?

I don't think it really matters. IMO to makes more sense, but if it complicates the code too much to add it, then cc should be fine

[MitarashiDango]

When sending Announce activity or Undo Announce activity, should the ID of the poster of the original post be included in the to? Or should it be included in cc?

When I checked the implementation part before fixing this problem, the process of adding the url of the poster of the original post to cc was already implemented.

mastodon/app/lib/activitypub/tag_manager.rb

Line 110 in 2f6416d

cc << uri_for(status.reblog.account) if status.reblog?

Therefore, in order to make the content of the generated activity consistent, we will not implement the process of adding id to to, and we will leave this process as it is.
Instead, I'm thinking of modifying the test code to expect the id to be included in cc, is that okay?

[ClearlyClaire]

Therefore, in order to make the content of the generated activity consistent, we will not implement the process of adding id to to, and we will leave this process as it is. Instead, I'm thinking of modifying the test code to expect the id to be included in cc, is that okay?

Sounds good to me!

Also, the reblog_service_spec.rb tests need change, because they stub ActivityPub::DistributionWorker and expect the delivery to the reblogged user to happen somewhere else.

[MitarashiDango]

Deleted tests that are no longer needed and added tests.

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged.

[ClearlyClaire]

Sorry this PR slipped through. I'll rebase it and make sure it's merged!

the requested change has been addressed

[github-actions]

This pull request has resolved merge conflicts and is ready for review.