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
Federation 2.0 #9345
Federation 2.0 #9345
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #9345 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 51.8% 6.33% -45.47%
- Complexity 26222 26393 +171
============================================
Files 1673 1690 +17
Lines 96928 97627 +699
Branches 1290 1290
============================================
- Hits 50209 6184 -44025
- Misses 46719 91443 +44724
|
20ccb81
to
cbfd266
Compare
5e06045
to
0e76f93
Compare
a0c0cc9
to
a4e71fd
Compare
parent::__construct('cloud_federation_api'); | ||
|
||
$container = $this->getContainer(); | ||
$container->registerCapability(Capabilities::class); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer if this was moved to a separate register
method instead of having the constructor have side effects
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
most apps I checked, e.g. notifications and activity register the capabilities in the constructor. What side-effects are you referring too? I don't see a real different if I call it manually each time I instantiate the application or if it is done automatically in the constructor.
public function addShare($shareWith, $name, $description, $providerId, $owner, $ownerDisplayName, $sharedBy, $sharedByDisplayName, $protocol, $shareType, $resourceType) { | ||
|
||
// check if all required parameters are set | ||
if ($shareWith === null || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
use strict type hints instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not really an option here, because I want to be able to control the exception in case of a missing parameter.
throw new BadRequestException(['permission']); | ||
} | ||
|
||
error_log("new permissions: " . $ncPermissions); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
left over debug
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
removed
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
…ares are enabled for the specific resource type Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
18606a3
to
da256da
Compare
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
Signed-off-by: Bjoern Schiessle <bjoern@schiessle.org>
I think the failing tests can be ignored, they fail randomly and I don't see how they are connected to this PR. Looking for your final 👍 😉 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Huge and scarry. But seems to work. Lets do this.
Not sur, but I think this pull request should sollve issue #1440 (Allow the implementation of federated calendar and contact sharing) and... there's a bounty on it. Maybe someone should take it. https://www.bountysource.com/issues/37963414-federated-calendar-and-contacts-sharing-210-00 Many many many thanks to the dev for your work ! |
Make Federated Sharing OCM compatible (with some small additions/modifications)
Allow the implementation of federated calendar and contact sharing
basic infrastructure
receive shares over new API
send shares over new API
receive notifications over new API
send notifications over new API