"You are not allowed to modify this address book." That is Stalwart's
answer to a sharee subscribing to a book shared read-only, and it is a
fair one: `isSubscribed` lives on the collection rather than on the
reader, so adding one is a write to the *owner's* account. The identical
write on a shared calendar is accepted. The difference is the server's.
So the flag is still asked for first -- a preference the server holds is
one every client agrees about -- and when it is refused the answer goes
in the reader's own synced settings instead, as `addedShares`, keyed by
account and collection. Either record counts as added, and the rule has
a test of its own because three components ask the question and they
must not drift apart.
Two things about how this hid. The refusal arrives as a *successful*
response with the id in `notUpdated`, so the version that ignored it saw
nothing wrong and the button simply did nothing -- fixed a commit ago,
and it is what turned "the + does nothing in Firefox" into a sentence
from the server. And it cannot be seen from the owner's account at all,
where the write succeeds: it took two browsers signed in as two accounts
to find, which is why it survived every check made from one.
The mock refuses the same write for the same reason. One that accepted
it would have gone on agreeing with the belief that shipped.
Verified against it: adding the shared book is refused by the server,
recorded in settings, and the book moves to "Shared with me" with its
contacts reaching the To field; removing undoes all three; and it
survives a full page reload, which is the point of putting it where the
settings live rather than in this tab.
jcoffey-dev
5e5bec31b7