Activity. link token in activity confused users

[ScharfViktor]

I found a few problems while increasing the coverage for activity.feature

ocis 6.5.0
web. 10.3.0

1. ## superfluous activities fixed via owncloud/web#11770
Steps:
- admin creates space link (view role by default)
- admin changes link role to edit role
- admin sees activity

Actual:

reason: we send @libre.graph.displayName and type in the PATCH body request if we only update displayName or type(permission)

1.1 ## superfluous activities - #10293
~~Steps: ~~
- admin creates space link with edit role
- public updates file file.txt (public opens file in text editor- put content-> save->close editor)
- admin sees activity

~~Actual: ~~

Expected: file.txt was downloaded via public link fguCwoKHERsDYim is superfluous.

2. link token in activity confused users. I first noticed this when I updated the link password and wondered if I was seeing the password in activity (it was link token)

Steps:

• admin creates 2 space links (Unnamed link and new link)
• admin changes role of the new link
• admin sees activity

Actual: Admin updated permission for a link fhLLZLQKeooTvry on s2
I know that fhLLZLQKeooTvry is link token
But for many users, this may not be obvious

Expected: Admin updated permission for a link new on s2
If we have both Unnamed links -> here is question but maybe better to provide Admin updated permission for a link Unnamed on s2. not sure here

[AlexAndBear]

Issue 1 is on us. Issue 2 is more likely a backend issue

[AlexAndBear]

Transferred to ocis repo, as #1 has been fixed via owncloud/web#11770

[2403905]

@micbar @AlexAndBear Web sends the displayName: "Unnamed link" each time for the link create request. That makes all links identical for the user after the webUrl has been hidden.

[AlexAndBear]

@2403905 Well, this is on purpose, users can update the links later and give them names (but I don't think this is the usual case).

@ScharfViktor suggested

If we have both Unnamed links -> here is question but maybe better to provide Admin updated permission for a link Unnamed on s2. not sure here

[2403905]

@AlexAndBear Does it look good to the user?

[AlexAndBear]

@2403905 I don't get the question.

What is your suggestion? The user can claim names for the unnamed links

[micbar]

Unnamed link looks like a bug IMHO. Link would be totally fine, like in ocis 5.

People will ask „why did you change it?“ and so on.

[micbar]

Or, alternatively show the proposed display name in a pre filled input field, where the user could change it during creation already. I think only a very few users get the fact that the tree dots are offering a rename.

[AlexAndBear]

I am not sure... The rename from "link" to "unnamed link" was part of the share panel redesign:
owncloud/web#11606

Since @kulmann and @tbsbdr are currently not available, maybe @JammingBen can say something about why this naming scheme has been chosen

[JammingBen]

It was a decision @tbsbdr , @kulmann and I made together to communicate to the user that these links have not been given a name (yet). I don't really understand how this looks like a bug 🤔 The redesign just made the name more prominent, I don't think many users noticed the name before at all.

[AlexAndBear]

Talked with @micbar and @2403905 about the "Unnamned link" thingy, and decided to leave everything as it is, for now

[ScharfViktor]

Talked with @micbar and @2403905 about the "Unnamned link" thingy, and decided to leave everything as it is, for now

I think we're off track:

how should looks activity?

• with link token

or

• with link name: Admin updated permission for a link Unnamed on s1

[AlexAndBear]

With the link name aka unnamed link instead of the token, if I am not mistaken

[2403905]

It will be like this