Application data dir, sailjail and OrganizationName

[attah]

So, i played around a bit with SailJail some months ago, and never quite figured it out.
One of the side-effects what that SeaPrint is now setting OrganizationName according to this.
I left it in, admittedly not thinking too much about it, but if anything it felt like a reasonable preparation.

That then passed Harbour QA 3 times, but now it was rejected. What gives?

Is setting proper OrganizationNames not something we want in the future?
Changing back only to have to set it again in a couple of months seems not so nice.
But any clear recommendation on this would be much appreciated.

[poetaster]

Stupid question… what is the OrganizationName in this case?

org.SeaPrint

And how does it relate to organizing source (I’m thinking of old java naming conventions)

[poetaster]

UPDATE, never mind, looked it up: net.attah.seaprint.desktop

It didn’t get through QA withe the entries commented out?

[vige]

@attah

That then passed Harbour QA 3 times , but now it was rejected. What gives?

Like mentioned in the email you received, your app writes to a directory which is not allowed. Sure, it happens because you followed the instructions in the sailjail repository. But the Sailjail stuff is not yet ready to be used by third party applications.

@attah

Is setting proper OrganizationNames not something we want in the future?

Might be so. Or not. I don’t know, and quite likely nobody does. That’s exactly why this stuff is not yet allowed in Harbour.

But anyway, thanks for testing the stuff, even if it’s not yet ready! The issue that you found is definitely one that needs to be sorted out sooner or later. Either by changing the Harbour rules, or by changing the Sailjail instructions.

[poetaster]

I was curious, since it’s not in the permissions guide mentioned if sailjailing will require code reorganization? The java reference I made … I would guess, not?

[attah]

@vige

the email you received

Oh, we are supposed to get emails? That would be great!
I keep having to poll harbour for notifications.

@vige

your app writes to a directory which is not allowed. Sure, it happens because you followed the instructions in the sailjail repository. But the Sailjail stuff is not yet ready to be used by third party applications.

Yes, but i wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t because it had passed QA 3 times with this behaviour, and i assume people will lose their settings now.

But I’ll revert then, no worries… just a bit confused.

[attah]

No, it deals only with packaging and runtime stuff (afaik).
Having opinions on how the source code is organized would be silly.

[poetaster]

You read my mind. 10 years of java development have left deep scars I kid. Sort of.

[karry]

Hi @vige. As I read your blog post about Sailjail today, it is the right time to start experimenting with it, right? It there any draft for the new Harbour rules related to Sailjail? And migration guide?

I’m not setting OrganizationName in desktop file nor Qt code now. It works with Sailjail in SFOS 4.2, but my application is loosing access to ~/.config/<app-name>. When I setup organization name, configuration is mounted from ~/.config/<organization>/<app-name>, that needs migration and organization needs to start with harbour- to comply today’s Harbour rules…

[vige]

Hi, and thanks for the questions!

Yes, now is the time to start experimenting. Actually, the new Harbour rules are already in place. So you can already submit apps with sandboxing profiles to Harbour, but the profiles won’t have any effect yet. And the organization name does not have to start with harbour

For those who are better at reading code than English, here’s the commit, defining the new rules: https://github.com/sailfishos/sdk-harbour-rpmvalidator/commit/9988aa5a06ea3d30193e7548a12016d004d4e353

As for migration - yes, we definitely should write some kind of guide. For now, I think the best thing to do is to just move the configuration files from the old directory to the new. It’s easy to do as your applications are not yet sandboxed.

[karry]

Ok, I will need to write some migration code. It is easy. But when I add this configuration to desktop file:

[X-Sailjail]
Permissions=Internet;Audio;Location;RemovableMedia;Documents;Downloads
OrganizationName=cz.karry.osmscout
ApplicationName=harbour-osmscout

Sailjail refuses it:

[defaultuser@Xperia ~]$ /usr/bin/sailjail  -p harbour-osmscout.desktop /usr/bin/harbour-osmscout 2>&1 
[sailjail] ERROR: Invalid value harbour-osmscout for ApplicationName
[defaultuser@Xperia ~]$ version 
Sailfish OS 4.2.0.21 (Verla)

I may change app name it to OSMScout, but does it comply with Harbour rules? It will not match to HARBOUR_APP_NAME (as used in FAQ) then and it is kind of weird. It is necessary to match with name set by QCoreApplication::setApplicationName ?

[vige]

@karry

I may change app name it to OSMScout , but does it comply with Harbour rules? It will not match to HARBOUR_APP_NAME (as used in FAQ) then and it is kind of weird. It is necessary to match with name set by QCoreApplication::setApplicationName ?

Yes, changing the name to OSMScout complies with the Harbour rules. The FAQ needs updating - I’m quite sure we have an open task about that. It is necessary to match the application name set in the code, but then again you don’t have to set it in the code. If you use libsailfishapp (like most Sailfish apps should), it will take care of setting the application name.

[attah]

TIL: You need to remove X-Nemo-Application-Type=silica-qt5 or it will try (and fail) to boost sailjail itself.
Edit: only when testing with sailjail as the executable.

[karry]

Thanks for your support. I made simple migration utility (c++/Qt), everyone can use it as inspiration: https://github.com/Karry/osmscout-sailfish/pull/270/commits/c4c4211e2c5f273a306ae5fd58cccbe3fe277e16

@vige I have last remaining issue. When I am using QSettings instance for storing application configuration (created with default constructor), it is using ~/.config/<organizationName>/<appName>.conf file, but Sailjail is creating and whitelisting ~/.config/<organizationName>/<appName> directory. Is there any global possibility to say QSettings to use config file in different directory? Or Sailjail to whitelist specific file?

[vige]

@karry

When I am using QSettings instance for storing application configuration (created with default constructor), it is using ~/.config/<organizationName>/<appName>.conf file, but Sailjail is creating and whitelisting ~/.config/<organizationName>/<appName> directory.

To me that sounds like a bug, and I filed it as such in our internal bug tracker.

[karry]

So, I setup organization name (cz.karry.osmscout), prepare code for migration of configuration and new release was rejected, because:

Your application is creating misnamed folder under /home/defaultuser/.cache/cz.karry.osmscout and /home/defaultuser/.config/cz.karry.osmscout and /home/defaultuser/.local/share/cz.karry.osmscout. Folder name must be harbour-osmscout.

We will need some time (at least one application release) when applications will be using new locations, but still be running without sailjail - to make migration possible. Is there any plan when Harbour rules will be updated?

[vige]

@karry

Is there any plan when Harbour rules will be updated?

Yes there is. I’m literally working on it right now. I hope we can get the new rules in place within a week. Of course, one should always expect the unexpected, and this is kind of busy week for us, so things might get delayed a bit, but anyway soon™

[nephros]

Is it legal to set Orga name to “.”?

That would work around the problem that most(?) apps don’t use an orga name in their paths, and just have .foo/appname locations.

[vige]

…and the new rules should be in place now. Please test and report if you still have issues uploading your apps which are using the new locations.

[rinigus]

You could make up Org name - it doesn’t have to be something available. Similar issue is with Flathub/Flatpak for example.