Sorry, I missed seeing this earlier. (In reply to :Lina Cambridge from comment #6) > I thought it did already, but looks like we might have changed that in bug 1596588? Or, hmm, maybe not, I guess that didn't actually change the implementation, since we still have to get the subscription—also verifying that it still exists—to map the channel ID to the scope...is that right, Jon? Yes, that's accurate. We've mapped getting a subscription to be the same as "get or create" if one doesn't exist. Our channel ID is also derived from the scope so that mapping should be consistent. In bug 1596588, we were only using the scope so we simplified the API around that.
Bug 1611035 Comment 8 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Sorry, I missed seeing this earlier. (In reply to :Lina Cambridge from comment #6) > I thought it did already, but looks like we might have changed that in bug 1596588? Or, hmm, maybe not, I guess that didn't actually change the implementation, since we still have to get the subscription—also verifying that it still exists—to map the channel ID to the scope...is that right, Jon? Yes, that's accurate. We've mapped [getting a subscription][0] to be the same as "get or create" if one doesn't exist. Our channel ID is also derived from the scope so that mapping should be consistent. In bug 1596588, we were only using the scope so we simplified the API around that. [0]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/reference-browser/blob/402c8f7fbbfdea3ebe8d79732b550432276847cc/app/src/main/java/org/mozilla/reference/browser/push/WebPushEngineIntegration.kt#L56-L68