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

Allow public link sharing only for certain groups feature not implemented #4623

Closed
SagarGi opened this issue Sep 21, 2022 · 9 comments
Closed

Comments

@SagarGi
Copy link
Member

SagarGi commented Sep 21, 2022

Description

We have scenarios in core like

Scenario: users not present in public share shares groups cannot create a new public link share
    Given parameter "public_share_sharers_groups_allowlist_enabled" of app "files_sharing" has been set to "yes"
    And parameter "public_share_sharers_groups_allowlist" of app "files_sharing" has been set to '["grp1"]'
    When user "Alice" creates a public link share using the sharing API with settings
      | path | fileToShare.txt |
    Then the OCS status code should be "403"
    And the HTTP status code should be "200"
    And the OCS status message should be "Public link creation is only possible for certain groups"

Where we use occ command to enable public_share_sharers_groups_allowlist_enabled but apparently on ocis this could not be possible. There are tests scenarios that are expected to failure file because we cannot set with command. So just need the confirmation or information regarding it if it will be implemented, otherwise we could add tags and remove them from expected to failure.

@SagarGi
Copy link
Member Author

SagarGi commented Sep 21, 2022

@phil-davis @micbar if you could give some details regarding it?

@phil-davis
Copy link
Contributor

This is an example of one of many options available in oC10 that control certain things that users can or cannot do. oCIS does not have any option like this. I think that there is an issue somewhere that mentions lots of these oC10 sharing options - and AFAIK there will be future decisions about which options might be implemented the same in oCIS, which will have a similar but slightly different implementation, and which will not be implemented in oCIS.

i will look for the issue...

@phil-davis
Copy link
Contributor

It is issue #1328 - #1328 (comment)
"Will be implemented on spaces, not per instance." - @micbar I suppose that this optional setting public_share_sharers_groups_allowlist_enabled, if implemented on oCIS, would also not be a system-wide setting?

@individual-it
Copy link
Member

according to @micbar this will be most likely implemented per space, so these kind of tests will not be applicable this way in ocis, so they should be tagged with @notToImplementOnOcis

@amrita-shrestha
Copy link
Contributor

amrita-shrestha commented Dec 21, 2022

currently, public link sharing only for certain group's test cases has been skipped for ocis. After the feature has been added to ocis QA team can add test cases.

@SwikritiT
Copy link
Contributor

SwikritiT commented Apr 17, 2023

What I got from this discussion is that these settings will be implemented in ocis but not as they are currently in implemented core and the related tests have been skipped on ocis (or probably removed after the latest moving of tests from core to ocis). When the new feature is added maybe we will have a new issue to write tests on them.

Maybe this issue can be closed? or any other reason we should have it open?

cc: @phil-davis @individual-it @amrita-shrestha

@phil-davis
Copy link
Contributor

@SwikritiT correct - when a similar feature is implemented for ocis, then QA team and the developers can create test scenarios for the feature.

We should remove any existing test scenarios related to this issue from the ocis acceptance test suite(s). If that has already been done, then close this issue.

@SwikritiT
Copy link
Contributor

SwikritiT commented Apr 17, 2023

TODO QA Team:-

@PrajwolAmatya
Copy link
Contributor

The steps related to occ commands have been removed, so closing this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants