dav principal search to honour sharing.maxAutocompleteResults setting #24659
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
blizzz
requested review from
rullzer,
nickvergessen,
ChristophWurst,
juliusknorr and
skjnldsv
blizzz
changed the title
| @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ public function __construct() { | |||
| $proxyMapper, | |||
| \OC::$server->getConfig() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| \OC::$server->getConfig() | |
| $config |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And the userSession further up. And then using get over the deprecated getters. And then DI, at least the container. I agree, but that's better kept in a separate PR. I am afraid of an endless rat-tail here.
| @@ -205,10 +212,11 @@ public function searchPrincipals($prefixPath, array $searchProperties, $test = ' | |||
| $restrictGroups = $this->groupManager->getUserGroupIds($user); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| $searchLimit = $this->config->getSystemValue('sharing.maxAutocompleteResults', null); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cast to int|null, just to be sure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, there's gold:
interface:
local:
I set 25 as default and went with int and a sanitization, put it into a constants, streamlined other differing default values, updated the config.sample.php.
blizzz
force-pushed
the
enh/noid/dav-honour-sharing.maxAutocompleteResults
branch
from
c8a933e to
8e9b308
Compare
nickvergessen
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2020
skjnldsv
approved these changes
Dec 14, 2020
ChristophWurst
approved these changes
Dec 14, 2020
|
/compile /apps/files_sharing/ |
blizzz
added
4. to release
- it is being used on frontend by users - user and big instances benefit from quicker results and less load Signed-off-by: Arthur Schiwon <blizzz@arthur-schiwon.de>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Schiwon <blizzz@arthur-schiwon.de>
blizzz
force-pushed
the
enh/noid/dav-honour-sharing.maxAutocompleteResults
branch
from
fc1c05e to
d8ad4ef
Compare
|
/compile /apps/files_sharing/ |
Signed-off-by: npmbuildbot-nextcloud[bot] <npmbuildbot-nextcloud[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
rullzer
deleted the
enh/noid/dav-honour-sharing.maxAutocompleteResults
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This crossed me when investigating a different issue. When using the calendar app to share the calendar, the DAV search is being used. There is not limit, and if I remember correctly the DAV protocol does not foresee to submit a value (correct me if i am wrong). When typing 'pow' in the search field, first I thought I ended up in an infinite loop (for some other changes i did). But in fact, it just searches the LDAP until the very end, resulting in 438 users in the results.
The limitation speeds up finding users and groups, increasing response time for end users and decreasing load on the servers.
Question: for now I left the default behaviour as unlimited, but would prefer to limit it to 25 as it is done in most other places. Objections? And, are there any fundamental objects to this change?