From 575a9a9f5e70d6968ca4323103874f2a29031f41 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jaap-Jan de Wit | DodoTech Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 08:47:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Stop the relay checkbox promising a connection this client cannot make MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ticking "Connect through the server relay" moved the host's address and port out of the encrypted payload into plaintext columns on the server — the single deliberate privacy concession in the design, per ADR 0004 — and then the client dialled the address directly, exactly as it does with the box clear. VaultViewModel builds SshConnectionRequest(hostname, port, username, credential) and nothing on this side reads RelayEnabled at all. The connection failed the way it always had, for a machine the laptop could not reach, with nothing saying the box had done nothing. The server half is built and shipped: tickets, the WebSocket, the deny list, the CHECK constraint that enforces a non-null address for a relay-enabled host. What does not exist is the client's path to it, so this is an unfinished feature rather than a broken one — but the control in front of it was collecting the cost of the finished version. Both heads now say so, in the label and in the first sentence of the paragraph under it. Not disabled, and that is the one decision here worth stating: a host somebody has already ticked has to be able to lose the flag, and a control greyed out with the concession switched on would trap it there. Tickable and honest beats untickable and stuck. This is step 0 of docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md, and the only step of it that should ship alone — the sentence is written to be deleted when the bridge lands. VERIFIED. Build clean, 112 layout tests. The drawer's paragraph is longer than it was and the host editor is measured with the drawer open at the window's minimum, so the wrap is held inside the column rather than assumed to fit. --- docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md | 14 +++++++++----- .../Views/HostsScreen.axaml | 11 +++++++++-- src/DodoSSH.Client.App/Views/HostDrawer.axaml | 15 +++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md b/docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md index 30d3ea3..3538451 100644 --- a/docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md +++ b/docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md @@ -12,11 +12,11 @@ This document is the comparison between them, which is the thing that has to be built, and then the plan. It replaces an earlier draft of `docs/jump-hosts.md` that recommended deleting the jump chain — see the last section for why that was wrong. -> **Status: planned, nothing started.** Step 0 is a one-line honesty fix and should not wait for the rest. +> **Status: step 0 done, the rest planned.** > > | Step | State | Notes | > | --- | --- | --- | -> | 0. Stop promising the relay | Not started | The checkbox is wired to storage and to nothing else | +> | 0. Stop promising the relay | **Done** | Both heads say the box is not wired up and that ticking it stores the address and changes nothing. Left tickable, so a host already carrying the flag can lose it | > | 1. The loopback bridge | Not started | ADR 0004's "one mechanism, two features" | > | 2. Jump hosts over it | Not started | No server change at all | > | 3. The relay over it | Not started | Ticket call, WebSocket, then the same bridge | @@ -38,9 +38,13 @@ design, per ADR 0004 — and the connection is still made from their laptop to t not reach. It then fails exactly as it did before, with no hint that the box did nothing. This is worse than the jump chain, which is invisible and harmless. It is a control that spends something -real. Step 0 exists because it should not survive another release in that state, and it is one line: the -checkbox says the relay is not wired up yet, the way this codebase already handles port forwarding on the -phone's More screen. +real. + +**Step 0 is done.** Both heads now name the absence in the label and lead the paragraph under it with what +ticking the box actually does today — the way this codebase already handles port forwarding on the phone's +More screen. It is left *tickable* rather than disabled, deliberately: a host that already carries the flag +has to be able to lose it, and a disabled control would trap the concession on. The sentence comes out again +at step 3. ## The comparison diff --git a/src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/HostsScreen.axaml b/src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/HostsScreen.axaml index 622cc11..bb3a919 100644 --- a/src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/HostsScreen.axaml +++ b/src/DodoSSH.Client.Android/Views/HostsScreen.axaml @@ -1099,13 +1099,20 @@ ◆ The one control here that publishes something. Turning it on copies this host's address and port into plaintext columns the server can read, which is the single deliberate concession in the design — see ADR 0004 — so it says so rather than being a switch labelled "relay". + + ◆ AND IT SAYS, FIRST, THAT IT BUYS NOTHING TODAY. The relay's server half is built and this + client has no path to it — the connect path dials the address directly whether this is ticked or + not — so the box as it stood spent that concession and delivered nothing for it. Left tickable + rather than disabled, so a host already carrying the flag can lose it. See + docs/reaching-a-host-you-cannot-dial.md. --> - + Text="Not built yet: this app always dials the host itself, so ticking this stores the address on the server and changes nothing about how the host is reached. When it works, the relay will dial on your behalf — which is why the address and port have to be stored in the clear. Everything else about the host stays encrypted either way, and a relayed host needs a port of its own rather than its group's." />