Show fuse.encfs and fuse.cryfs file systems
Depends on D20991
Details
Details
- Reviewers
ngraham hallas - Group Reviewers
Frameworks - Commits
- R245:116c805ba461: [Fstab] Add support for non-network filesystems
solid-hardware list details:
udi = '/org/kde/fstab/fuse.encfs/home/stefan/Vaults/TestVault' parent = '/org/kde/fstab' (string) vendor = 'fuse.encfs' (string) product = '~/Vaults/TestVault' (string) description = '~/Vaults/TestVault (fuse.encfs)' (string) icon = 'folder' (string) StorageAccess.accessible = true (bool) StorageAccess.filePath = '/home/stefan/Vaults/TestVault' (string) StorageAccess.ignored = false (bool) udi = '/org/kde/fstab/fuse.cryfs/home/stefan/Vaults/CryTest' parent = '/org/kde/fstab' (string) vendor = 'fuse.cryfs' (string) product = '~/Vaults/CryTest' (string) description = '~/Vaults/CryTest (fuse.cryfs)' (string) icon = 'folder' (string) StorageAccess.accessible = true (bool) StorageAccess.filePath = '/home/stefan/Vaults/CryTest' (string) StorageAccess.ignored = false (bool)
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R245 Solid
- Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable. - Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.
Comment Actions
Nice! Can we make the Places panel display the product rather than the description? I don't think it's necessary to have the fs type listed there in the label. Interested parties can always look that up in the Properties dialog.
Comment Actions
The open question is if this should happen in solid or in the panel code ... I have no strong preference here.
Comment Actions
Hmm yeah, feels like maybe it should happen in the Panel code to use the Product rather than the Description.
| src/solid/devices/backends/fstab/fstabhandling.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 126 | Why do we limit to these two filesystems? I think it would be really useful to show all kinds of fuse based filesystems, e.g. isofs, sshfs and xrdp-chansrv. | |
| src/solid/devices/backends/fstab/fstabhandling.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 126 | Now that the refactoring's been done, it should be easy to add support for those or remove the conditional. | |
| src/solid/devices/backends/fstab/fstabhandling.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 126 | Yes indeed :D I was just wondering why it was made the way it is? Is there a reason for the limit or was it just because we were only targeting vault type mounts? | |
| src/solid/devices/backends/fstab/fstabhandling.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 126 | fuse filesystems are just to different to say "just add it and see what breaks". Other types should be added on a strict whitelist basis. | |