Document difference between OCM Shares and collaboration Shares

[michielbdejong]

The Opaque field in a CreateOCMShareRequest is optional but Reva's
implementation requires it.

[michielbdejong]

It expects req.Opaque to be a map with:

• "permissions" string
• a "name" string
• a "protocol" string that could be:
  • "datatx" for ShareType Transfer, or
  • anything else for ShareType Regular

It then sets name, req.RecipientMeshProvider, permissions, nil, "", sharetype as additional (undocumented?) arguments in the call to sm.Share.

I'll see if I can find out if any of the existing share manager implementations do anything with these arguments, if not then we should probably stop requiring them.

[michielbdejong]

• json: no
• memory: no
• nextcloud: no
• sql: no

Hm, I'm a bit puzzled now about why this code even exists at all?

[michielbdejong]

Ah wait, there is ocm.share.Manager
for handling ocm.Share shares
And it differs fromshare.Manager which handles collaboration.Share shares.

So apparently OCM isn't the only way to collaborate in ScienceMesh?

Anyway, this does probably confirm that the bug is in the CS3API message for ocm.core CreateOCMShareRequest because it was probably copied from sharing.collaboration CreateShareRequest without making the change of marking Opaque as required.

[michielbdejong]

The difference between OCM shares and collaboration shares is as follows:

< // Manager is the interface that manipulates the OCM shares.
---
> // Manager is the interface that manipulates shares.
4,5c4
< 	Share(ctx context.Context, md *provider.ResourceId, g *ocm.ShareGrant, name string,
< 		pi *ocmprovider.ProviderInfo, pm string, owner *userpb.UserId, token string, st ocm.Share_ShareType) (*ocm.Share, error)
---
> 	Share(ctx context.Context, md *provider.ResourceInfo, g *collaboration.ShareGrant) (*collaboration.Share, error)
8c7
< 	GetShare(ctx context.Context, ref *ocm.ShareReference) (*ocm.Share, error)
---
> 	GetShare(ctx context.Context, ref *collaboration.ShareReference) (*collaboration.Share, error)
11c10
< 	Unshare(ctx context.Context, ref *ocm.ShareReference) error
---
> 	Unshare(ctx context.Context, ref *collaboration.ShareReference) error
14c13
< 	UpdateShare(ctx context.Context, ref *ocm.ShareReference, p *ocm.SharePermissions) (*ocm.Share, error)
---
> 	UpdateShare(ctx context.Context, ref *collaboration.ShareReference, p *collaboration.SharePermissions) (*collaboration.Share, error)
18c17
< 	ListShares(ctx context.Context, filters []*ocm.ListOCMSharesRequest_Filter) ([]*ocm.Share, error)
---
> 	ListShares(ctx context.Context, filters []*collaboration.Filter) ([]*collaboration.Share, error)
21c20
< 	ListReceivedShares(ctx context.Context) ([]*ocm.ReceivedShare, error)
---
> 	ListReceivedShares(ctx context.Context, filters []*collaboration.Filter) ([]*collaboration.ReceivedShare, error)
24c23
< 	GetReceivedShare(ctx context.Context, ref *ocm.ShareReference) (*ocm.ReceivedShare, error)
---
> 	GetReceivedShare(ctx context.Context, ref *collaboration.ShareReference) (*collaboration.ReceivedShare, error)
27c26
< 	UpdateReceivedShare(ctx context.Context, share *ocm.ReceivedShare, fieldMask *field_mask.FieldMask) (*ocm.ReceivedShare, error)
---
> 	UpdateReceivedShare(ctx context.Context, share *collaboration.ReceivedShare, fieldMask *field_mask.FieldMask) (*collaboration.ReceivedShare, error)

[ishank011]

@michielbdejong thanks for reporting. I understand there are a few elements specific to our implementation. IIRC, at the time of implementing this, I did find a few missing things in the OCM API. Would you be available for a short discussion around this sometime next week? We can converge around the discrepancies and I can work towards making our implementation more robust.

[michielbdejong]

It looks like cs3.sharing.ocm is implemented by pkg/ocm/share
and cs3.sharing.collaboration is implemented by pkg/share.