Revoking a share meant opening the share dialog, removing each person
from it in turn, and saving. That is the right tool for changing who has
access and the wrong one for withdrawing it altogether, which is the more
urgent of the two and the one someone is likely to want in a hurry.
Both now offer "Stop sharing" in the context menu, which clears the lot
after a confirmation saying how many people lose access. It appears only
when there is something to revoke, so the menu says whether a thing is
shared as well as offering to change it.
A calendar also says it is shared now. Address books have carried that
badge since they gained sharing; calendars never did, so the only way to
find out was to open the dialog and look -- which for the owner of a
dozen calendars means opening a dozen dialogs.
Both go through the existing update paths, so a server that refuses is
reported rather than swallowed.
Verified against the mock, both kinds: sharing one shows the badge and
adds the entry, confirming clears `shareWith`, the badge goes, and the
entry disappears with it since there is no longer anything to stop.
"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.
An account linked for its files also offered its calendar and its address
book, and neither had been shared. That was not ihasmail inventing them:
asked about the other account, the live 0.16.19 returns every calendar
and every book it holds, each with full rights -- read, write, share,
delete, all true. There is nothing in the rights to tell "shared with me"
from "reachable at all", because the server does not distinguish them.
`isSubscribed` does, and it is the field JMAP has for exactly this: it
came back false on all of them. So a shared calendar or book is listed
under "Shared with me" once the reader has added it, and under "Available
to add" until then, with one button either way.
Nothing unsubscribed contributes anything. A calendar that has not been
added draws no events, and a book that has not been added lends no cards
to the To field -- which is the one that mattered most, since it is the
difference between offering a colleague's contacts and offering a
stranger's without anyone having asked.
The mock's shared calendar and address book now arrive unsubscribed, the
way the real server hands them over, so the adding is exercised rather
than skipped; and its `Calendar/set` and `AddressBook/set` route by
account, since subscribing to somebody else's is a write to their
account and the mock had nowhere to put it.
Verified against the mock: the shared calendar sits under "Available to
add" with no events in the grid, adding it moves it to "Shared with me"
and its events appear, removing it undoes both; and `suggest("katherine")`
finds nothing until the shared book is added, then finds her.
Address book sharing was withdrawn a few hours ago on a report that it
behaved like mail folder sharing. That was wrong -- it works -- and it is
back, built the way Files is rather than the way it was.
Three things it inherits from Files. Shared books are listed in the app's
own left pane instead of behind an account switch in the profile menu.
The reader's books and other people's sit under separate headings, since
a book belonging to somebody else behaves differently and a single merged
list would be quiet about whose contacts you are reading. And opening
Contacts re-reads the session, so a book shared while the tab was open
turns up without signing out and in again.
The books pane the view kept to itself is gone, and with it the last
module that ignored the sidebar it was given.
The one thing Files does not need: shared contacts have to answer when
somebody types a name into a To field, so they are loaded up front rather
than when a book is opened, and they are offered by `suggest` and found
by `lookupByEmail` alongside the reader's own. Their own cards win a tie,
since a card someone wrote themselves should beat a colleague's copy of
the same person. That is the difference between a shared book you can
look at and one you can use.
Cards from a shared account are held apart from the reader's rather than
merged in, and keyed by account as well as id. Ids are only unique within
an account -- two accounts each having a book `ab1` is ordinary -- and a
flat map would have had one silently replace the other.
The mock grew an address book in its shared account, with contacts in it,
because none of this could be exercised otherwise.
KNOWN-ISSUES records the withdrawal as the mistake it was rather than
leaving it in the history looking like a finding. Mail folder sharing
stays withdrawn: that one really is broken.
jcoffey-dev