Skip to content
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

Improve share access process and share examples #158

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

glpatcern
Copy link
Member

This PR is an attempt to fix #157, but in doing so it partly breaks the v1.1 protocol to access a share.

In particular, for the webdav and datatx protocols compatibility is ensured by keeping the same property name uri (resp. srcUri), but the recommended value is now a simple identifier or "key", not a full URI.

For the webapp protocol I propose to break compatibility, assuming that the only implementation that requires to be adapted is Reva.

This is still work in progress as I'm myself not fully happy, the main outstanding question being shall we actually drop uri and go for sharedKey?

@glpatcern glpatcern marked this pull request as draft October 22, 2024 08:38
Copy link
Collaborator

@mickenordin mickenordin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think breaking backwards compatibility for webapps should be ok, the one I was thinking about except reva was Nextcloud talk, but they don't use webbapp, but rather talk-v1:

    {
      "name": "talk-room",
      "shareTypes": [
        "user"
      ],
      "protocols": {
        "talk-v1": "/ocs/v2.php/apps/spreed/api/"
      }
    }

@glpatcern
Copy link
Member Author

That's right, talk is a "protocol" on its own, and I can obviously take responsibility to align Reva's webapp support to OCM 1.2 if we go ahead with this PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@michielbdejong michielbdejong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@michielbdejong
Copy link
Contributor

michielbdejong commented Oct 24, 2024

I think it's OK to leave it as "uri", with the note that it SHOULD be a relative one.

@glpatcern glpatcern marked this pull request as ready for review October 24, 2024 12:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Path-to-resource examples in Share endpoint
3 participants