Provide a tar ball #55
Assignees
Comments
|
It would also be fine with Nextcloud 26 if that is easier |
|
I tried @yasharpm can you try? |
|
I am getting the conflict errors as well. Looking at the conflicts, some of them are identical to each other! |
|
The only conclusion I can make is that our forks from NextCloud/master contained commits that did not make it in the future releases of NextCloud. Our fork is more that 400 commits behind the NextCloud master. I will be very difficult to compare which commits are not there. Trying to find a way... |
|
Is it possible to do it the other way around? I.e. to checkout stable 26 branch and cherry-pick only your commits? Do you have a list of commit hashes that needs to be applied to Nextcloud? |
|
Is it just these two? our contribution to NC MFA: nextcloud/server#35555 (pending) |
That's a great idea! There are only 2 commits we need in there.
Yes. https://github.com/pondersource/server is ahead and contains both commits. |
|
Seems right to me! I'm going to cherry pick them and see how it goes. |
|
I did this now: then I manually added: To line 27 of apps/workflowengine/src/components/Checks/file.js since that hunk failed, and then ran: |
|
I think you are doing amazing work! 😄 |
|
I followed @mickenordin 's steps. The changes Also tried calling My peers are back to work today. So hopefully we will get together and get it ready ASAP. |
|
Ok, this is the latest enterprise version: https://download.nextcloud.com/.customers/server/26.0.1-21154162/nextcloud-26.0.1-enterprise.zip To that, I can apply these patches: Is that correct? As you can see I removed some hunks that references these files:
The two last ones seems strange though, since the original patch removes them, and they are present in the enterprise zip. That leads me to believe that they are created after a build step, which must be run first, so maybe the idea to patch the enterprise zip directly did not pan out... |
|
dist/workflowengine-workflowengine.js(.map) does not differ after applying the patches and running make all in the git repo and checking aginst the files in the enterprise zip. |
|
So applying these two patches to the v26.0.1 tag of the official nextcloud git repo, running npm install and make all, produces these changes: |
|
This is one patch that applies cleanly to nextcloud-26.0.1-enterprise.zip Can you verify that this is all that is needed? In that case, I think we are good to go :) For future use, I will leave the patch inline here as well: |
|
Ah well that's awesome! I will test our mfa app against this new NextCloud and make sure everything works fine. I'll keep you posted. |
|
The mfa app also requires the File access control to also be installed. @mickenordin do you need the tar ball with only the NextCloud or the two apps (mfa, file_accesscontrol) also installed on it? |
|
If you can verify that the patch above works, it is fine for me, I can use the enterprise tarball and patch it when building the docker image. I will use this tar ball for file access controll: https://github.com/nextcloud-releases/files_accesscontrol/releases/download/v1.16.0/files_accesscontrol-v1.16.0.tar.gz |
|
@mickenordin good news! We just checked everything and we are OK to move forward with the above patch. 👍 |
|
Perfect, I can package it up and supply it to radically open security 👍 |
|
@yasharpm can you confirm that this is the version of the app I should use: |
|
This is the one. I confirm! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
@mickenordin asked for a tar ball of NC-25 with our PRs applied.
I remember the trouble we ran into when we tried to do the same thing for our ScienceMesh app: pondersource/sciencemesh-php#157 (comment)
If we provide this today then it will leave one week for setting up the server before the security audit starts.
I think we will fail to complete this task today but we will try to get as far as we can with it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: