Also update conversation if we detect that the dmToken has changed.

indexedDb/impl/dm/implementation.go

@@ -218,6 +218,8 @@ func (w *wasmModel) receiveWrapper(messageID message.ID, parentID *message.ID, n
 	timestamp time.Time, round rounds.Round, mType dm.MessageType, status dm.Status) (uint64, error) {
 
 	// Keep track of whether Conversation was altered
+	// FIXME: this is very similar to updateConversation 
+	//.        below. Can we merge them?
 	conversationUpdated := false
 	result, err := w.getConversation(partnerKey)
 	if err != nil {
@@ -238,6 +240,7 @@ func (w *wasmModel) receiveWrapper(messageID message.ID, parentID *message.ID, n
 		jww.DEBUG.Printf(
 			"[DM indexedDB] Conversation with %s already joined", nickname)
 
+		updateConversation := false
 		// Update Conversation if nickname was altered
 		isFromPartner := bytes.Equal(result.Pubkey, senderKey)
 		nicknameChanged := result.Nickname != nickname
@@ -245,13 +248,28 @@ func (w *wasmModel) receiveWrapper(messageID message.ID, parentID *message.ID, n
 			jww.DEBUG.Printf(
 				"[DM indexedDB] Updating from nickname %s to %s",
 				result.Nickname, nickname)
-			err = w.upsertConversation(nickname, result.Pubkey, result.Token,
-				result.CodesetVersion, result.Blocked)
+			updateConversation = true
+		}
+
+		// Fix conversation if dmToken is altered
+		dmTokenChanged := result.Token != dmToken
+		if isFromPartner && dmTokenChanged {
+			jww.WARN.Printf(
+				"[DM indexedDB] Updating from dmToken %s to %s",
+				result.Token, dmToken)
+			updateConversation = true
+		}
+
+		if updateConversation {
+			err = w.upsertConversation(nickname, result.Pubkey,
+				result.Token, result.CodesetVersion,
+				result.Blocked)
 			if err != nil {
 				return 0, err
 			}
 			conversationUpdated = true
 		}
+
 	}
 
 	// Handle encryption, if it is present

[Jake Taylor]

this formative directive will break

[Jake Taylor]

I think you can remove this boolean now since you added a new one that functionally means the same thing

[Richard T. Carback III]

I can't because conversationUpdated can happen on line 235 as well, so I believe these 2 vars have different semantics. One is used to determine if the entry can be updated, the other is used to determine if it has.

The code is due for a refactor, but thats a bit hairy and I am worried about correctness (I am sure it is correct now, I would not be sure if I made the changes necessary to remove conversationUpdated), so i'll add a FIXME.

[Jake Taylor]

It doesn't appear to be there are different semantics. You can move the upsert call in the first block down with all the others