Advice request on how to handle change in how Konqueror stores login information

[Stefano Crocco]

On mercoledì 25 settembre 2024 16:12:49 CEST Steven Robbins wrote:
> On Monday, September 23, 2024 12:33:40 A.M. CDT Stefano Crocco wrote:
> > On domenica 22 settembre 2024 23:53:33 CEST Steven Robbins wrote:
> > > The way I understood that suggestion is that there is NOT a one-time
> > > migration.  Rather, the algorithm when encountering a page with forms is
> > > roughly:
> > > 
> > > 1. look up the new way - if entry found, then use it; else
> > > 2. look up the old way - if entry found, then
> > > 
> > >    a) migrate to new storage
> > >    b) use data to fill form
> > > 
> > > So it would be a gradual migration.  If the data is found under the old
> > > scheme, then for migration (Step 2a) I would think you have enough info
> > > to
> > > build an unambiguous key for the new scheme?
> > 
> > I certainly have the information to build the new keys, but sometimes
> > (rarely) there's not enough information to associate the existing data
> > with
> > the correct key. If the old data is under the key http://xyz.com# and the
> > page has two forms, with entries http://xyz.com#f1 and http://xyz.com#f2,
> > what should I do with the existing entry? Rename it as http://xyz.com#f1?
> > Rename it as http://xyz.com#f2? Create two entries, http://xyz.com#f2 and
> > http://xyz.com#f2 with the same contents?
> 
> This is where I'm confused about the question ....
> 
> What does the current code do in such a situation?  Does it fill out form
> f1? f2?  both?  neither?
> 
> I was assuming the new code could do the analogous thing and be "no less
> robust".  Perhaps that is what you meant by the paragraph below.
> 
That's correct.

> > The last one is what I thought
> > you meant: it keeps the ambiguity because it doesn't attempt to decide
> > which form the entry corresponds to but uses it for all of them, leaving
> > it
> > to the user to correct things. In many circumstances, there are ways to
> > attempt to determine a single entry, but in some edge cases they could
> > fail. This is why I thought that having the user start the process would
> > be
> > better.
> 
> If I understand correctly, the answer is that the current code will fill out
> *both* forms f1 and f2 and let the user correct them?  If you retain this
> behaviour then it would at least be familiar :-)

Indeed.
> 
> Can you then migrate to the new structure after the user corrects and
> submits the form?

Yes, that can be an interesting option. However, because of the way the code 
is structured, I think it would be easier to do it before filling the forms. I 
think I've found how to do it in a mostly reliable way. I'll try and see if it 
works.

> 
> I'm clearly way out of my depth here, but I have enjoyed the discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve

Thanks

Stefano