To reshare a file there must be at least three enabled users in the
system; although it would be possible to run the steps to create a third
user in the scenarios that need it for convenience a third enabled user
besides "admin" and "user0" was added to the default setup.
In a similar way, a new step was added too to login as a given user
name, similar to the steps to log in as "user0" and as "admin".
Finally, another actor, "Jim", was introduced for those scenarios which
should be played by three standard actors (that is, without a special
configuration like "Rubeus").
Signed-off-by: Daniel Calviño Sánchez <danxuliu@gmail.com>
The "Download" item in the menu of public share pages is no longer shown
in wide (>768px) windows (although the element is in the DOM and shown
if resized to a narrow window).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Calviño Sánchez <danxuliu@gmail.com>
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>
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>
