New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unlocking two vaults with same name fails on Linux #3344
Comments
Closely related to #3272. |
We decided to drop the "name automatic mountpoint as vault name" approach and go completely with vault ids. Hence, we can also drop special handling for FUSE-T introduced in #3336. If the people want specifc/readable mountpoints, the should explicitly select those in the vault options. |
With @SailReal I had a longer discussions about the UI implications of this fix. Unlike FUSE-T, where you can specify a volume name which is displayed in the file manager instead of the directory name, when using FUSE always only the directory name is displayed. From a UI perspective, using the id as directoy name is absolutley a no-go, because the user must browse through different random strings until he/she finds their vault (e.g. using the "Save as..." dialog in an application). An alternative approach would be creating a directory named "[vault-id]" and a subdirectory with the mount name. Still subpar, but after a click the user see the mount name. Yet, considering two vaults with the same name as an edge case, the change would affect most of our FUSE-T/FUSE users. And sacrificing the easy identification due to an edge case is not the goal. The bottom line: The arguments against this change are to big, therefore it is reverted and the issue is rescheduled. Note, that this is not about automation. If you want to integrate your unlocked vault into scripts, use a fixed/custom mountpoint. |
Please agree to the following
Summary
On Linux, if i unlock two vaults with the same name consecutively, the second unlock fails. The error message does not indicate a solution. I did not changed the default app settings.
What software is involved?
Volume Type
FUSE
Steps to Reproduce
foo
foo
(stored somewhere else)Expected Behavior
Both vaults can be unlocked.
Actual Behavior
The second unlock fails with error screen.
Reproducibility
Always
Relevant Log Output
Anything else?
The above log output is the terminal output. There you can see in line 36 also the actual (fuse) error:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: