Android allows only having one address book per account, so until now
users of EteSync were only able to have one address book. This was
always an annoying limitation, but even more so now that journal sharing
is implemented.
Luckily, DAVdroid recently implemented multiple account support by
creating sub-accounts for address books.
This merge is based on the changes done in DAVdroid but was heavily
adjusted for EteSync.
It seems like there's an issue with Android that sometimes the userData
passed to addAccountExplicitly is not correctly set in the Android cache
making it return null on subsequent fetches. It doesn't always happen
because some cases clear the cache, however I can consistently trigger
it by creating and deleting an account a few times in a row.
This is an ugly workaround. For some reason a sync is called when an
account is removed. Since the main account is removed, we get an invalid
account exception when trying to fetch it.
Need to find out why a sync is even triggered and just remove it there.
Android allows only having one address book per account, so until now
users of EteSync were only able to have one address book. This was
always an annoying limitation, but even more so now that journal sharing
is implemented.
Luckily, DAVdroid recently implemented multiple account support by
creating sub-accounts for address books.
This patch is an import of the DAVdroid changes, with adjustments to
work with EteSync, and a few changes that did not make sense for
EteSync. The original commits' split didn't provide any value over this
squash, and the amount of adjustments and addition needed to be done to
apply them, made me decide to squash this change together.
This commit is mostly based on:
dfec72ce6b8ff5e0780e9ac4418c81d080f4b60b
9817594da14ad8dffae18de386e14aeaf41312b9
Thanks to @dschuermann for the suggestion. This makes it easier for
people of non-latin speaking cultures to compare the fingerprints.
Code is based off of Signal's fingerprint generation.
This change only works for calendars at the moment, because we don't have shared
address books anyway.
This is currently only implemented in the client, and only as a read-only attribute,
you can't make a journal read-only yet. This requires server support that is not yet
there, but it's better to be ready for this sooner rather than later.
Some of the information is now saved there, and more will be transferred
soon. CollectionInfo includes the encrypted part, and journalentity the
non-encrypted part of the journal info, so both are needed.
This merge adds support for sharing journals and all the infra that
comes with it.
This means that there's now a UI to see who's the owner of a journal,
adding, removing and listing members of a journal, creating an
asymmetric keypair and storing it encrypted on the server, and viewing
and comparing pubkey fingerprints.
This is ready to be used, but not 100% complete. For example, adding
a user to a journal, waiting until the user syncs (so he has it
locally), removing his access, letting him sync again, and then adding
access back would result in the journal being visible to the user (as
expected), but the content of the journal would not be applied unless
the user removes and readds the local account.
The reason for that is that before version 2, all the journals of a
particular user shared the same encryption key, which means, sharing a
journal of version one, would essentially give away the encryption key
of all of its journals, even the private ones.
This is thus blocked for security reasons.
This currently just adds the journal back, but doesn't re-apply the
journal, so the calendar for example would be empty, but the journal
itself would be listed and visible.
At the moment we only support one address book per user, and sharing
address books will interfere with this model. Hopefully, we'll add
multiple address book support in the next release, and then we'll
re-enable this.
We were not detecting the version correctly, but always just assumed
latest version, which is obviously wrong.
In addition, before this commit we used to automatically verify on
fetch, which wasn't flexible enough for some use cases. This fixes that
too.
