-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Access shares with owner's URL, not virtual path #6120
Comments
related: #5355 |
Related draft pull request for Reva: https://github.com/cs3org/reva/pull/3836/files |
For web, @kulmann agreed to look into this next week - so there will be progress. |
In order to work on this in web, ocis needs some changes first... use case 1: share the browser URL, with fileIds being disableddescription
resolve URL in webBecause of the URL path segment missing information from ocis
use case 2: share the browser URL, with fileIds being enableddescriptionSimilar to use case 1, resolve URL in webBecause of the URL path segment missing information from ocis
use case 3: navigate into share via
|
We do not need to get the drives via graph. I have a reva pull request opened which exposes the space root alias and the space root id on a share. That was designed to mitigate the issues you describe here because i was not expecting that we can get a full drives listing for all drives where the shares are originating. We also do not need all that drive information. I could provide an ocis branch where you could work against. |
But why would we want that information on OCS if we want to move sharing to graph and not use it in OCS anymore? |
Of course not. So far I can only tell that we want drive alias and webdav url to be exposed. What speaks against exposing that information via graph?
That would be much appreciated for a start. Thank you |
@mbarz thank you for #6300 - that seems to work and I would love to see it merged soonish. As a result I can already have share URLs identical for the share owner and all share receivers. Probably still has rough edges, but I'm getting there. The next two prios for unblocking web would be (in that order):
(1) is particularly important. (2) will be needed for a good UX. |
Your welcome 😊 |
Nono, just pinging you for fun from time to time. 😂🙈 |
realtes to: owncloud/web@49e125f |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 10 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
Current OCIS, as tested in https://ocis.owncloud.com works in the following way when accessing shares.
Workflow: Katherine shares
my folder
with Einstein.Logged in as Katherine
https://ocis.owncloud.com/files/spaces/personal/katherine/myfolder?fileId=166d1210-cdb9-50ab-9f1e-ecb9ef12a304%24534bb038-6f9d-4093-946f-133be61fa4e7%2133ca5587-29fd-48f3-abba-8305f57ad2b5&items-per-page=100
Logged in as Einstein
https://ocis.owncloud.com/files/spaces/share/myfolder?shareId=166d1210-cdb9-50ab-9f1e-ecb9ef12a304%3A534bb038-6f9d-4093-946f-133be61fa4e7%3Ab52d90fa-80ec-4b6b-a306-edcbd918dbbd&fileId=166d1210-cdb9-50ab-9f1e-ecb9ef12a304%24534bb038-6f9d-4093-946f-133be61fa4e7%2133ca5587-29fd-48f3-abba-8305f57ad2b5&sort-by=name&sort-dir=asc&items-per-page=100
Each recipient has its own
share URL
, relative to the user (in this case shareID=166...), that means if you send it to another person that person (even he has access), won't be able to access it.CERNBox
CERNBox use-case is that the recipient will be able to access the share by using the owner's URL:
https://ocis.owncloud.com/files/spaces/personal/katherine/myfolder?fileId=166d1210-cdb9-50ab-9f1e-ecb9ef12a304%24534bb038-6f9d-4093-946f-133be61fa4e7%2133ca5587-29fd-48f3-abba-8305f57ad2b5&items-per-page=100
CERNBox url looks like this. They need to be the same in OCIS edge.
Personal
https://cernbox.cern.ch/files/spaces/eos/user/g/guse...
Workspaces:
https://cernbox.cern.ch/files/spaces/eos/project/a/aproject/...
Personal spaces and Work spaces
They already behave with a full path (relative to space root). Sharing is the one that differs from this model.
@dragotin @aduffeck
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: