Add the ability to browse anywhere on the filesystem

[deviantony]

Currently, the agent browse feature is limited to the a specific part of the filesystem defined via the constant SystemVolumePath.

As a part of portainer/portainer#2182, we need to support browsing the FS anywhere.

The filesystem browsing and volume browsing features are fundamentally the same but their target is different. We still need to limit the ability to browse outside of a volume in the context of volume browsing.

[kendrickm]

I think we'll want to start by refactoring the filesystem functions to not require a volume, but instead just operate on a path. How do you expect the API to change?

[kendrickm]

Alternatively, we could use a keyword(root for example) as the id to key off of to use / vs the volume id, but that wouldn't work if somebody named their actual volume root

[deviantony]

I think we'll want to start by refactoring the filesystem functions to not require a volume, but instead just operate on a path. How do you expect the API to change?

I'm thinking that we should upgrade the API in the following way:

• Instead of having the volume ID as a route variable, we transform it as a query parameter so that /browse/myvolume/get becomes /browse/get?volumeID='myvolume' for example

• We'll be able to check for the existence of the volumeID query parameter in the backend of Portainer to allow requests where it is not set to administrators only

I agree on the fact that we'll need to refactor the filesystem functions, but we need to keep the calls to buildPathToFileInsideVolume when browsing into a volume (maybe simply export this function and use it in the handler if a volume is specified).

@kendrickm thoughts?

[kendrickm]

So if we don't pass in a query param we should assume that it's for the root file system? I agree the buildPathToFileInsideVolume function should be exported. This is a good start

[kendrickm]

Also, do you have thoughts for implementing an API versioning process?

[deviantony]

So if we don't pass in a query param we should assume that it's for the root file system?

Yes.

Also, do you have thoughts for implementing an API versioning process?

Never thought about it but it's a great idea. I can do a bit of searching around this, do you have any proposal for this? I'll open a separate issue to tackle this though.