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.
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.
We need the keypair to access shared journals, so we need to make sure
to fetch it at the moment we create the local account, which is what
this commit does.
This is used to create a keypair and put it on the server if one doesn't
exist, and fetch it and save it locally if one does.
It's currently called from the account activity.
If a journal has a key set to it (usually used for shared journals), use
it instead of the symmetric key. The key of the journal is asymmetrically
encrypted using our keypair.
Requery doesn't automatically update column constraints, and there was
an issue with it applying indexes before adding the new columns which
was also causing troubles. This commit, while ugly, just manually
updates the database using raw SQL to what we expect it to be.
Having it in raw sql was slowing down development, and was error-prone.
It's much cleaner now, easier to handle, and enables us to develop
faster.
In this change I also fixed the fetching of journals to be by service
and id, not just id, because just id is not guaranteed to be unique.
Before this change, uid was unique on its own, this was wrong, because
due to shared journals, we can have the same journal in two accounts,
and we can thus have both journal and entry UIDs more than once.
This fixes the constraint to be unique for journal, uid, and service,
uid combinations.
This is currently disabled for journals because of a bug in requery.
The server was changed so the owner of the journal, and the encrypted
key (if a shared journal) would be exposed. This change fetches it, and
saves it.
Although this release is claimed to fix the afterLoad issue, this is not
the case. We are just updating it so the upgrade path later one would be
easier.
