281e828e258fc1b18e2fb6783d7274eabe9836f5
7
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 jaap-jan
|
69bc9e270b |
Let a team be joined only by somebody who is already here
An invitation decided access from an assertion about an address. Everything else
in this model decides it from something a person did — an admin naming an
account, a key holder wrapping a vault key to a key they verified — and this was
the one place a token's email claim was the thing that let somebody in.
It was guarded as tightly as that can be guarded: the claim was refused outright
on an unverified or absent `email_verified`, with no setting to relax it. But the
guard and the risk were the same shape. The whole defence was one boolean sent by
a system the deployment does not control.
So `POST /teams/{id}/members` is the only way in, and an address with no account
is refused with `no-such-account` — which is now the end of the road rather than
the signal to invite. Both clients say the remedy: that person signs in here
once, which is what creates the account, and then they can be added. The desktop
leaves the address in the box, because a message telling you to come back later
is one you act on later.
Gone with it: the `team_invitation` table, the claim hook in the sign-in path,
and `Oidc:EmailVerifiedClaim`, which that hook was the only reader of. Nothing in
the server now reads the email claim to decide anything.
Pending invitations are dropped rather than converted. Converting one would mean
creating a membership because an address matched, which is the property being
removed — and an invitation to an address that did have an account here had
already been claimed by the hourly sweep, so what is left is offers to people who
never arrived.
Two tests carry the property rather than the feature: the endpoint inventory
asserts the three routes are absent, and the API suite adds an address that has
no account, watches the refusal, then signs that address in and checks it joined
nothing. Without the second half, a server that merely renamed the deferred path
would pass.
|
||
|
jaap-jan
|
4b706bc3c3 |
Say when a vault has moved, so nobody waits out the minute
The delta pull was cheap enough to run on a timer and the client did, once a minute. That is fine for a machine and wrong for two people: an edit a colleague makes is up to a minute stale, which is long enough for both of them to make it and produce a conflict neither needed to have. Shortening the interval is the obvious answer and the wrong one — it costs a request per client per interval whether or not anything happened, and it converges on a busier server that is still late. So the server now says so. A client holds a WebSocket open at GET /api/v1/events, subprotocol dodossh.events.v1, and gets a line down it when something it can read has changed. ADR 0012 has the reasoning; three parts of it are worth repeating here, because they are what everything else rests on. **What crosses the socket is a notice, never data.** A frame names a vault and how far its change log has got. No item, no ciphertext, not even which item it was. The client's answer is the delta pull it would have run anyway, so there is still exactly one code path that applies a change to a keychain, and it is not this one. Pushing the items themselves would save a round trip and fork that path in two, with the cursor, the merge and the tombstone rules duplicated across both — ADR 0003 put every mutation through one write path for that reason, and this keeps every read on one for the same one. It also makes a dropped notice harmless, which is what lets the fan-out below be as simple as it is. **Polling stays, and is what guarantees a pass.** The minute timer is unchanged. A network that eats WebSockets, a server with Events:Enabled off, an older server, a proxy that will not upgrade, a notice dropped under backpressure — every one of those leaves a client behaving exactly as it did before this commit. Nothing is reachable only over the socket and nothing is meant to become so; VaultViewModel's AutoSyncInterval remark now says that where somebody changing it will read it. **The bearer token authorises the upgrade, unlike the relay's ticket.** Not an inconsistency with ADR 0004: the relay's socket is a byte pipe whose whole authorization decision — which host, which IPs, which port — is made before it opens and never revisited, and it is the extraction seam for a process that must hold no ACL code. This one is a view of the caller's own vault list and has to keep answering "what may this account read" for as long as it is held. A ticket would carry that answer in a token and be wrong the moment the account's access changed. The two bounds that arrangement needs are met rather than waved at: the socket is closed at the token's exp with close code 4401 and the client comes straight back with a fresh one, and the vault set is re-resolved every few minutes as well as on the changes known to affect it. Both bound *metadata*, because a notice contains nothing else and reading a vault still needs a key this server has never held. **The fan-out.** VaultEventHub is a singleton holding the sockets this node accepted; publishing walks them and asks each whether it cares, rather than keeping a vault-to-subscriber index that every re-subscription would have to move entries between under a lock publishing also takes. At a few hundred sockets per node and an event rate bounded by how often people edit keychains, the walk is not measurable and its races are obvious. Per-connection queues are bounded and drop the *oldest*: a notice means "pull vault X, which is at least at sequence N", so the newest subsumes what it displaces and the client's answer is identical either way — which is what lets the publish path be void, never block, and never fail. Announced from the endpoint rather than from SyncService, and that placement is the point: by then the push has committed and released the per-vault advisory lock. From inside it would name a sequence no reader can see yet and would hold the lock that serialises writers across a socket write. Only the highest *applied* sequence, so a batch of pure conflicts announces nothing, and a duplicate — already announced when it first landed — announces nothing either. Grants and membership publish too, and those take the *recipient* rather than the actor. This is what AdmitNewVaultsAsync has been apologising for since sharing shipped — "the recipient is handed nothing, there is no push channel" — and the README with it. A vault shared with somebody now turns up as it is shared. The comment and the README paragraph both say what is true now, and both keep saying that the pass is what *discovers* the vault, because a client with no socket has to arrive at the same place. **On the client**, VaultEventStream is really a reconnection policy wrapped round a ClientWebSocket: a dropped socket is the ordinary case here — laptops sleep, proxies time out, tokens expire, servers are redeployed — so nothing in it treats a failure as exceptional, and every path ends in "wait, then dial again". A connection that lived long enough to say hello resets the backoff, so a laptop that woke, worked, and lost its network an hour later does not inherit a minute-long wait it has already proved it need not take. A 4401 close skips the backoff entirely and asks the token provider again, which is the whole reason that close code is distinct. A server that does not advertise the events feature gets IdleVaultEventStream, which never delivers — so IVaultServer.Events is never null and every caller stays on one shape, because the correct behaviour without a socket is the behaviour with a silent one. The shell's background loop now selects between the timer and a notice, and both waits are held across iterations. That is load-bearing rather than tidy: PeriodicTimer permits one outstanding WaitForNextTickAsync and throws on a second, and an abandoned channel read stays registered and consumes the next notice written. Either defect leaves the first notice working and every one after it silently lost, which is why NoticesKeepWakingTheLoop_NotJustTheFirst pushes three and not one. Notices are coalesced over a quarter of a second, so one person's save — a host and its log entry are two items — and a colleague clearing a folder each cost one pass rather than a dozen. **The kind is a string, not an enum**, and that is a compatibility decision. UseStringEnumConverter throws on a value it does not know, so a newer server sending a kind an older client had never heard of would not add an unreadable frame — it would break that client's socket outright. A string is ignored instead. ProblemCodes is the same shape for the same reason. **Tested on both sides, through the real pipeline.** The endpoint suite opens a genuine socket against TestServer and proves a push produces a notice, that another account's push does not reach it, that a ping is answered, and that a frame this server cannot parse does not end the connection. Two of those assert on *ordering* rather than on absence within a timeout — the stranger's write goes first, so a socket that leaked would have announced it before the one the test waits for — because "nothing arrived in two seconds" is a test that passes on a slow machine for the wrong reason. And ANoticeCarriesNoCiphertext asserts on the bytes that crossed the wire rather than on the record's fields, since the latter would only prove that this type has no payload member, which is a tautology; the former is what catches a field added later without anybody thinking about disclosure. The client suite drives VaultEventStream through an injected connector, because the one thing a test cannot do to a real network is make it fail on cue — and failure is the entire subject. The shell suite proves a notice produces a pull inside ten seconds against a sixty-second timer, so the timer cannot be what caused it. **Two limits, stated rather than left to be discovered.** Fan-out is in-process, so a deployment running more than one API replica only pushes for writes its own replica handled and the rest arrive on the timer. IVaultEventPublisher is the seam a PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY backplane implements and it is deliberately not implemented: an untested backplane is worse than a documented gap, and multiple replicas degrade to the behaviour before this commit rather than breaking. And a client is notified of its own writes; it pushed, so it already pulled, and the extra pass finds nothing. Suppressing that echo correctly needs a per-device identity on the socket, and the same user's other machines must still be told. Manual checks phase 15 covers what no test here can reach, which is the network in between: a proxy that will not upgrade, one that drops an idle socket without telling either end, a laptop lid, a token expiring. Every one of those is invisible inside a test host, and every check there passes only if the change arrives quickly *and* still arrives with the socket taken away. ADR 0012 also fixes one thing about the shared terminal session this is the transport for, so it need not be renegotiated later: session data will be binary frames on this same socket, because base64 in a JSON envelope is the wrong shape for the one payload here that is continuous rather than occasional. Two questions it explicitly does not answer by implication — whether those bytes go through the API at all, and what end-to-end encryption means when the second party watches a stream rather than holding a key — are ADR 0001 questions and get their own decision. 1512 tests pass. DodoSSH.SystemTests was not run — it needs the whole compose stack — so the end-to-end path is unverified for this change beyond what the manual checks describe. |
||
|
jaap-jan
|
e9cea2ccbc |
Let a shared vault arrive, a bucket be found, and a vault be deleted
Three things a user reported, one of which was a real bug and one of which was
not the bug it looked like.
**A vault shared with somebody never reached their machine.** The grant was
correct at both ends: the sharing client verified the recipient's key against the
key log and wrapped every generation to it, the server stored it, and /me would
have returned it. Nothing asked. VaultSession.RefreshVaultsAsync — the method
whose own summary says it is "called after a share and on a periodic pass" — had
no caller anywhere in the application, so the vault list was whatever the last
browser sign-in cached. A restart did not help: an offline unlock reads that same
cache. The vault appeared only if the recipient happened to sign in through the
browser again, which is why this looked like sharing being broken rather than
like a list that was never re-read.
So every synchronisation pass now re-reads it, before it syncs. SyncOnceAsync
takes the whole server rather than its sync half for that reason, and the order
matters: a vault admitted by the refresh is one that same pass then pulls, where
the other order would show a newly shared vault as an empty one until the minute
after. The shell is told only when the set actually changed — it rebuilds the tab
strip's vault menu from the session's list, and doing that on every quiet pass
would rebuild a menu once a minute for nothing.
The test needed the fake server to be able to do something no test here had
needed before: hand this account a vault it did not make. ShareVaultWithMe wraps
a real key to the encryption key this account enrolled, so the keyring opens it
exactly as it opens a real colleague's — a helper that filled the field with
bytes would let a vault appear in the list and never prove it could be read.
**Adding an S3 bucket on the desktop works, and could not be found.** The report
was that it is not possible; driving the real XAML headlessly says otherwise —
Keychain, + BUCKET, and the editor saves. What is true is that S3 is where
somebody goes looking, and from there SELECT BUCKET opened a combo box with
nothing in it and no sentence anywhere saying that a bucket is a keychain item.
From where the user was standing that is indistinguishable from an application
with no way to add one.
The empty state now says what a bucket is and offers a button that lands on the
keychain with the editor already open — navigating to the screen and leaving
+ BUCKET to be found among five buttons would be most of the same problem. The
phone gets the sentence and no button: its keychain screen reads and deletes and
edits nothing, so there is no editor to send anybody to, and naming the machine
that has one beats an empty control that reads as a screen still loading.
The keychain screen's layout test grew the two categories it never covered.
Tags and buckets arrived after it was written, and the header strip it measures
is one that has overflowed twice before.
**A vault can now be deleted.** DELETE /api/v1/vaults/{id}, gated on Admin —
the line the rename already drew, for a stronger version of its reason, since
this takes the vault from everybody in it at once. The row is soft-deleted and
every grant to it withdrawn in one write; VaultAccessService filters on the stamp
at both ends, so from that moment the vault is absent from every member's /me and
every call naming it answers 404. Their clients notice on the pass described
above.
The team behind it is archived when it owned nothing else, which is the mirror of
renaming it: a vault made from the vaults screen gets a team named after it that
nobody was ever shown, and leaving that behind would leave a membership list no
screen has a row for. That is a second call rather than one transaction —
archiving is TeamService's, it refuses while a team owns vaults, and it can only
tell that this one no longer does once the deletion is committed. A crash between
the two leaves an empty team: invisible, archivable afterwards, harmless, and a
better failure than a vault that could not be deleted because tidying up after it
did not work.
Two refusals worth stating. The personal vault cannot be deleted at either end:
it is created by enrollment, everything filed nowhere else lives in it, and no
call would make another. And the items are kept — ciphertext behind a vault
nothing will resolve, so deleting them buys no confidentiality while destroying
what an operator undoing a mistake would need.
The client drops the key from the keyring and the row from the cache rather than
waiting for a refresh, so the list is right immediately; the items stay, as they
stay for a vault whose grant was withdrawn, because a copy is on every other
member's machine too and removing these rows would be the client pretending to a
reach it does not have. The confirmation says that out loud before it is
answered. It is the one sentence this screen must not leave implied: deletion is
no more retroactive than revocation is. See ADR 0001.
Desktop only, deliberately. The Android vaults screen offers no rename and no
hand-over either, so adding delete alone there would be the one destructive vault
operation on a screen with no other.
Three places asserted that a vault can never be deleted — TeamService's refusal
message, the TeamNotEmpty problem code, and ADR 0009 — and each now names the
route instead.
|
||
|
jaap-jan
|
a0568d4c35 |
Merge branch 'main' into the vaults screen, and let it rotate keys too
Main built vault key rotation while this branch was reshaping the screen that would drive it, so the two met in the same three files. Every other conflict was textual and resolved by taking both; these are the ones where a decision had to be made. **The view model.** Main taught TeamsViewModel three things and this branch had renamed and rewritten it into VaultsViewModel. All three are ported rather than dropped, because each is a behaviour rather than wording: adding somebody now wraps the vault to them on the spot instead of leaving SHARE KEY to be pressed, removing somebody rotates the vault and hands the new key to whoever is left, and a share reports how many generations were wrapped. The session calls they reach — ShareTeamVaultsAsync and RekeyTeamVaultsAsync — are scoped to a membership list rather than to one vault, and they are called that way here rather than narrowed: adding somebody is a change to the list, so every vault the list carries is one they can now fetch. This screen makes lists that carry one vault, so the sentences name one; where a list carries several, naming them all is the honest report, and the members section already says the list is shared. AddMemberAsync ran two lines over the length limit once the sharing was in it, so the calls behind it moved to AddOrInviteAsync and the three-way refusal to WhyNobodyCanBeAdded — the command reads as its guards now, which is what it was before the sharing arrived. **The tests.** Main's four new cases are ported to the vault-first API, including the one that matters most: the tampered key log is corrupted *before* the add, because the add is now a route to a wrap and a test that corrupted it afterwards would be asserting about the manual route only. SelectingAVault_ListsWhoHoldsAKey now expects two holders rather than one — main's fake records the creator's own self-grant, and a key-holder list that omitted it would show the one person who can certainly open a new vault as somebody who cannot. **The README.** The limits list is six rather than four or five: main's rotation entries and this branch's "a vault cannot be deleted" describe different things and both are true. "The rekey is flagged, never performed" is gone, since it is now performed, and M3 reads *Done* rather than *Done, except rekey*. One thing worth writing down that neither side had. An invitation claimed at sign-in still leaves the key owed, where an add does not: at the moment an invitation is issued there is no account and no published key to wrap to, and the claim happens on the invitee's machine, which holds nothing. Manual check 12.1 says so, because a reader who knows adding shares would otherwise read that step as stale. 1561 tests pass. |
||
|
jaap-jan
|
8707629a6c |
Make the vault the thing you share, and ask a host which one it lives in
The teams screen listed teams that owned vaults, so sharing four servers with two
colleagues meant creating a team, then a vault inside it, then wrapping a key.
Two of those three steps are about a concept nobody arrives wanting. The screen
now lists vaults: naming one creates the membership list that carries it, named
after the vault and owned by you, and members, invitations, roles, hand-over and
key holders all hang off the vault they apply to.
Nothing on the server moved. VaultAccessService still resolves a shared vault
through team_membership and every membership call still names a team id — what
went is the requirement that anybody make one. The split the whole design rests
on is untouched and is still what the screen is built around: adding somebody
authorises the server to serve them, and only a machine holding the key can make
the vault readable. ADR 0009 keeps its decision and gains an addendum recording
which half of it a person is now asked about.
The one place the team resurfaces is a membership list carrying several vaults,
which this screen cannot produce and does not hide: the members section says so,
because "adding somebody here adds them there" is precisely the fact a
vault-shaped screen is in a position to conceal.
Two things left the interface and one arrived. Creating a team is gone, and so is
archiving one — it was only ever possible for a team owning no vaults, and a
screen whose rows are vaults has no row for one, so the button would have been
unreachable or always refused. The endpoint is unchanged and the screen states
the limit instead, since a vault cannot be deleted at all. The exception is a
create whose second call failed: cancelling that form archives the membership
list it left behind, which is a deliberate departure from this client's rule
against tidying up on the user's behalf, made because nothing else can reach it.
What arrived is PUT /api/v1/vaults/{id}. Without it the screen loses its only
editing action, since renaming the team behind a vault is invisible to everybody
who was never shown the team. It is gated on PermissionFlags.Admin — the line
UpdateTeamEndpoint already draws, because a name is what everybody in the vault
sees it called rather than part of its contents — and it renames the owning team
with it when that team carries nothing else, so the row an operator reads and the
name a user says cannot drift apart. The slug never moves, for the reason it does
not move on a team rename. The session edits its cached vault row rather than
replacing it with the response, which deliberately carries no wrapped key.
The host editor now asks which vault a host goes into, beside the name, while
adding and only where there is more than one vault to write to. It is a second
picker rather than the keychain screen's reused, and the two selections are
separate on purpose: that one is a standing preference about where new items go,
this is a field of the host in front of you, and binding both to one selection
would mean a click on the other screen could move a half-typed host. An existing
host is not offered it at all rather than offered it disabled — the two vaults
are encrypted under different keys, so moving an item is a delete and a retype.
That forced a fix worth naming. The group picker was built from the active
vault's groups whatever vault the host was being filed into, so a host put in a
shared vault could be filed under a group only its author can resolve — a
colleague would see it filed under nothing, which is the quietest kind of wrong.
Groups are now kept per vault and the picker follows the vault choice.
Two renames, because the pair they would otherwise have made is a bug farm:
ShellScreen.Vault became Keychain and VaultScreen became KeychainScreen, which is
what the rail has always labelled that screen, leaving Vault for one vault's
contents and Vaults for the vaults themselves. The enum values are unchanged;
NavRail.axaml writes them as x:Static literals.
1536 tests pass, seven more than before. Five are new on the server — the rename
endpoint's success, the team it does and does not take with it, the two refusals
and the empty name — and the client suite gains six and folds four together,
having lost the two about archiving a team.
|
||
|
jaap-jan
|
d5b1a73182 |
Move the keys when a membership changes, not just the flag
Adding somebody to a team granted them nothing readable and removing them
rotated nothing. Both were honest — the interface said so in as many words — and
both left the actual work to a button somebody had to remember to press, on a
machine that happened to hold the key. Adding now wraps every team vault this
machine can open to the new member, and removing revokes their grants and moves
each of those vaults to a fresh key that goes to whoever is left.
The rotation is where the design had to be decided rather than written. A vault
key is per generation and an item carries the generation it was sealed under, so
advancing the vault and withdrawing the old grants would make everything already
stored unreadable to everybody, including whoever pressed the button. So earlier
grants are kept: a member holds one per generation, /me serves them as
PriorKeyWraps, and VaultKeyring holds a key per generation — the newest for
writing, the item's own for reading, chosen per item on every read path. Sharing
issues one grant per generation held, because a recipient handed only the current
key would open the vault to find most of it undecryptable; revocation takes every
generation, because leaving the history behind leaves them able to read
everything written before the rotation.
The bump itself is one server transaction. POST /vaults/{id}/rekey must name
exactly current + 1 and the vault's xmin token makes that binding, so two admins
rotating at once do not both walk away believing they succeeded — the second is
refused and told to read the vault again. The server contributes the moment and
no cryptography: it cannot generate the key, cannot tell that the one it is
handed differs from the old one, and checks that the caller held the old one the
only way it can, by requiring a live grant at the current generation.
What this does not do is re-encrypt what is already stored, and the product says
so rather than the reassuring version: everything written from the rotation
onwards is unreadable to the person who left, and nothing about the past changes.
That half is deferred and is safe to add incrementally precisely because a vault
at mixed generations stays readable. ADR 0010 records the alternatives — revoking
the old grants, chaining each key under its successor, re-sealing every item in
one request against a server that caps a push at 500 operations — and why each
was rejected.
Two things fell out of the change rather than being asked for. The grant listing
would have shown a member once per generation, so it now returns one row per
holder carrying the best key they hold, which is what makes a row below the
vault's generation mean "still owed the new key". And MarkUnreadable gives up the
write target as well as reporting: a client whose vault was rotated elsewhere
would otherwise have gone on sealing items under its superseded key — readable to
its author, unreadable to everybody else, with nothing to show for it.
|
||
 jaap-janandClaude Opus 5
|
a43286ece8 |
Let a team change hands, and be joined by somebody with no account yet
M3 built teams and stopped short of the two operations that decide who controls one. Both were written down as refusals rather than omissions: ADR 0009 listed ownership transfer under "deliberately not built", and design-import-gaps said an invitation needed "a token with a lifetime and an outbound mail path". One of those reasons had expired and the other never applied — an invitation does not need a token if it is not a thing anybody presents. Handing a team over is one write. The member you name becomes owner and you become an admin, in a single transaction, because ownership is sole: promoting first leaves the team owned twice, demoting first leaves it owned by nobody, and there is nobody left with the authority to finish a transfer that stopped in the middle. That is also why it is not two calls to the role endpoint, which refuses Owner outright. The outgoing owner is demoted rather than removed — removing them would revoke their vault key grants and flag every team vault for rekey, which is a far larger act than the one asked for, and somebody handing over a team is usually staying in it. It unblocks the thing that was impossible before: an owner can now leave, by handing the team on first. An invitation is a standing instruction rather than a message. This server has no outbound mail path, so nothing is sent and there is nothing for the invitee to present. The row says the next account signing in with that address joins this team at this role, and telling them to sign in is the caller's job over a channel this server does not carry. A link nobody can deliver would be worse than none. It lives in its own table rather than becoming a membership with MembershipStatus.Invited, and that member stays unwritten for the reason it always was: team_membership.user_id is not nullable and carries a foreign key, so somebody who has never signed in has nothing for that row to point at. Widening it would make the unique index on (team, user) meaningless, because PostgreSQL counts every NULL as distinct. Verification is the security boundary, and nothing in this server read it before. A claim requires the access token to assert email_verified. An invitation decides what the server will serve, so one claimable by anybody able to obtain a token carrying somebody else's address is a way into a team — which is precisely the attack OidcOptions.AllowEmailLinking exists to refuse, and it would have been reintroduced by the back door. There is deliberately no setting that relaxes it: a flag that exists is one somebody turns on for the afternoon their provider is misconfigured. Absence is refused rather than trusted, and logged, because a provider that never sends the claim otherwise leaves every invitation pending with nothing anywhere saying why. Claiming happens at just-in-time provisioning and again on an hourly sweep. The sweep is what makes it recoverable rather than one-shot — an invitation issued between an account being created and that person next signing in would otherwise be stranded for ever — and it shares its rate with the last-seen write because both are housekeeping nobody is waiting on. Archiving is refused while a team owns a vault, and that refusal is the end of the road rather than a step on it. A team vault is readable because of membership, so archiving one that still owned vaults would take them away from everybody holding a key, including the caller, quietly and all at once. Nothing in this product deletes a vault, so no order of operations gets past it today — which is stated with a count of what is in the way, for the reason the SFTP layer refuses a recursive delete: a refusal is visible and a quiet removal is not. It is owner-only, as handing over is; renaming is not, because a rename is visible to everybody and reversible by anybody who can do it. The slug is not renameable at all: it is unique only among live teams, so a rename could take one an archived team is still holding, and that team could then never be restored. LAST ACTIVE is real and coarse on purpose. UserAccount.LastSeenAtUtc is refreshed on ordinary authenticated requests, at most once per account per hour, through ExecuteUpdateAsync — user_account carries the xmin concurrency token, so a read-then-write on the hot path would start losing races between one user's own overlapping requests. An hour is the granularity the question is actually asked at, and the interface draws it to the day rather than the minute so it does not read as a precision that is not there. The remarks in Contracts and in the view model that argued at length for the column's absence are rewritten rather than extended; both had become false. Two endpoints already existed and nothing called them. ChangeTeamMemberRole and ListVaultGrants have been reachable since M3. The role picker refuses Owner itself rather than letting the server do it, since the interface already knew the rule; the key-holder list sits under the vault rather than beside the member, because a grant is per vault and a count on a member row would imply per-item sharing, which is M5. It lists withdrawn and stale grants and says which they are — a list that dropped them would show a departed colleague as merely absent rather than as somebody whose key was taken away — and staleness is decided by comparing generations, since a grant can be Active and still open nothing. ADD MEMBER stopped being a dead end. An address the directory did not know used to end at a sentence telling the user their colleague had to sign in first. It invites them instead, from the same button, because which of the two applies is a fact about the server's account table rather than about what the user is doing; which one happened is reported afterwards, because that decides what they do next. An address that merely has an account is invited rather than refused: refusing would have made the endpoint an oracle for which addresses have accounts here, answerable by anybody willing to create a team first. The phone has a TEAMS screen, behind MORE, and it is the reverse of every other row in design-import-gaps: a shipped screen the design had no slot for. It is there because an invitation is claimed by signing in, so somebody told they are now in a team is at least as likely to be holding a phone — and a membership visible only on a head they never installed is one they cannot see. It draws SHARE KEY and nothing that takes something away: wrapping a key is the one act on that screen a server cannot perform at all, and the desktop guards its revocations with a tooltip, which is a control a touch screen cannot show. Two defects were found by an adversarial pass and both were green against the whole suite at the time. The owner-only check on archiving and handing over had been weakened to the admin check while their messages and comments still said owner — and since nothing behind the archive endpoint re-checks it, an admin the owner had promoted could have archived the team out from under them. And the rename endpoint built its response with a hardcoded Owner role, so an admin who renamed a team was handed a summary claiming they owned it, and a client trusting that instead of re-listing would have offered them the two owner-only buttons the server then refuses. The new table gets its constraints tested rather than merely migrated: live uniqueness per (team, address), the citext proof that an address typed by a person matches one cased by a provider, and reissue after both revocation and acceptance. The teams screen gets its first entries in the layout suite, at the minimum window with every list populated and with each of the two states that cover half of it — it had none, and it just grew four sections and a second line in the member row. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |