New mount setting: read only mount

[mmattel]

This is an update to #33035 which was closed in favour of the ownCloud 10 codebase.
The original PR was filed by @TJHeeringa

Description

Provide an option in the mount settings for setting a mount to be read only

Related Issue

• Fixes [Feature Request] Mark mount as read only in the mount settings #29873

Motivation and Context

Provide a mount in read only mode.

How Has This Been Tested?

Local tests. Create a mount in master, switch to branch, read only is false. Set the option read only either on an existing mount or a new mount provides the mount in read only mode. Sync client syncs and tells on local changes that you do not have permission to write to.

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Database schema changes (next release will require increase of minor version instead of patch)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Technical debt
• Tests only (no source changes)

Checklist:

• Code changes
• Unit tests added
• Acceptance tests added
• Documentation ticket raised: will be added when approved
• Changelog item, see [TEMPLATE] (https://github.com/owncloud/core/blob/master/changelog/TEMPLATE)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #36397 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 57.14%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #36397      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     64.68%   64.68%   -0.01%     
- Complexity    19105    19106       +1     
============================================
  Files          1269     1269              
  Lines         74721    74728       +7     
  Branches       1320     1320              
============================================
+ Hits          48333    48337       +4     
- Misses        26000    26003       +3     
  Partials        388      388

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
#javascript	54.12% <ø> (ø)	0 <ø> (ø)	⬇️
#phpunit	65.85% <57.14%> (-0.01%)	19106 <0> (+1)

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
apps/files_external/js/settings.js	51.84% <ø> (ø)	0 <0> (ø)	⬇️
apps/files_external/lib/Command/ListCommand.php	68.04% <0%> (-0.41%)	0 <0> (ø)
apps/files_external/templates/settings.php	33.69% <100%> (+0.72%)	0 <0> (ø)	⬇️
lib/private/legacy/util.php	73.59% <60%> (-0.12%)	219 <0> (+1)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b7cae93...2a19481. Read the comment docs.

[micbar]

@mmattel I restarted the CI.
Let see, what happens.

I would be glad if we could cover this with tests.

[mmattel]

@micbar there are only two tests I found using setMountOptions and getMountOptions but none of them are tests manipulating file data...

[DeepDiver1975]

THX @mmattel

• squash commits
• use a descriptive commit message - the PR title would work

[micbar]

@mmattel THX for the Changelog :-)

[mmattel]

@DeepDiver1975 squashed and rebased

[mmattel]

@jvillafanez mind merging?

[micbar]

@jvillafanez mind merging?

You need @DeepDiver1975 to approve, he requested the changes.

[mmattel]

Ping?

[phil-davis]

@DeepDiver1975 ping for re-review.
@micbar schedule for release? If so, then can have some acceptance tests added.

[mmattel]

@DeepDiver1975 @micbar ping?

[mmattel]

@pmaier1 @micbar In the same way I agreed my contribution/maintenance in the other PR, I do the same here. Hope this helps to proceed.

@phil-davis I would appreciate your assistance for the tests

review comments have been addressed

[phil-davis]

@individual-it plese review the test that I added (latest commit)

review comments have been addressed

[phil-davis]

@individual-it ready for review of tests again
I added lots of lines to the Then section of the scenarios to check what download, upload, rename, delete can or cannot be done.

[phil-davis]

@micbar this is the other PR from @mmattel @TJHeeringa that is a waiting feature.
I have added an acceptance test.
IMO this is "good to go". There has been code review, and @individual-it is doing a final review of my test code.

OK to also get this in 10.4 ?

[individual-it]

acceptance tests look good

[phil-davis]

I merged to master because the code and tests have both been reviewed, this is wanted, and we are editing acceptance test code in a similar area for other stuff.

I have made a "backport" PR #36680 to 10.4 release branch.