There is no reason to log FileLock errors as exceptions to the log file.
Locks happen for very legit reasons and it is actually a sign of the
code doing its job.
Signed-off-by: Roeland Jago Douma <roeland@famdouma.nl>
In the acceptance tests the link share menu is automatically opened if
needed before interacting with an item in the menu; if the menu is not
open it is opened by clicking on its toggle.
However, since a recent change the link share menu is automatically
opened by the regular UI after the link share is created. This causes
that, sometimes, after the creation of a link share the acceptance tests
check whether the menu is shown or not before the menu was automatically
opened; as the menu is not open then the acceptance tests proceed to
click on the toggle, but in the meantime the link share was created and
the menu opened, so clicking on the toggle now closes it. As the menu is
closed it is not possible to interact with its items and the test fails.
To prevent that now the acceptance tests wait for the link share menu to
open after a link share is created before continuing with the other
steps.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Calviño Sánchez <danxuliu@gmail.com>
If the sendmail binary can't be found at all we fallback to the default
path.
It most likely is not there but then at least a proper error message
pops up.
Updated the tests to also properly pass.
Signed-off-by: Roeland Jago Douma <roeland@famdouma.nl>
`sendmail` can very well be in a path different from
`/usr/sbin/sendmail`.
We already search `$PATH` at `lib/private/Settings/Admin/Mail.php` to
detect whether we want to offer sendmail as a mail transfer method, so
let's be consistent and actually initialize `\Swift_SendmailTransport`
with this path to sendmail, instead of just hardcoding
`/usr/sbin/sendmail`.
Signed-off-by: Florian Klink <flokli@flokli.de>
When Talk is enabled the menu for link shares now shows a checkbox to
protect the password by Talk (that is, to show the "Request password by
Talk" UI in the authentication page for the link share).
Although in e-mail shares protecting the share with a password and
protecting the password by Talk are mutually exclusive actions (as when
the password is set it is sent to the sharee, so it must be set again
when protecting it by Talk to be able to verify the identity of the
sharee), in the case of link shares protecting the password by Talk is
an additional step to protecting the share with a password (as just
setting the password does not disclose it to anyone). As such, the
checkbox is shown only when there is a password set for the link share
(even if the field itself for the password is not shown, like when they
are enforced in the settings).
Note that the icon set for the field, "icon-passwordtalk", does not
currently exist; it is the same used for e-mail shares, and it is needed
simply to get the right padding in the menu.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Calviño Sánchez <danxuliu@gmail.com>
The update share tests only checked that the share returned by
"update()" had the expected values. However, as "update()" returns the
same share that was given as a parameter the tests were not really
verifying that the values were updated in the database.
In a similar way, the test that checked that a password was removed did
not set a password first, so even if the database returned null it could
be simply returning the default value for the share; a password must be
set first to ensure that it is removed.
Besides that, a typo was fixed too that made the checks on the original
share instead of on the one returned by "update()"; right now it is the
same share, so the change makes no difference, but it is how the check
should be done anyway.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Calviño Sánchez <danxuliu@gmail.com>
