mirror of
https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden.git
synced 2026-07-17 01:12:27 -05:00
Live sync for organization items only working when not using roles / groups #5200
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @wucherpfennig on GitHub (Apr 3, 2023).
Subject of the issue
Deployment environment
Steps to reproduce
Result
Expected behaviour
Live sync all the items to all the group members not only to the "hardcoded" directly assigned collection members.
Actual behaviour
Changes from organization members (independent whether using groups or not) will be reflected immediately to the organization owner but if the owner / somebody else creates a new entry in the collection this change will only be available after a "hard" reload (ctrl+shift+r).
This issue is resolved by no using groups! By not using them everything works as expected.
BR wucherpfennig
@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2023):
Thanks for the report.
I want to note that groups is still an experimental feature. But we do need reports like this to make it better.
@wucherpfennig commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2023):
We are very much aware of that "experimental" state but to be honest until now everything else works great and it saves us a lot of time managing our accounts and collections. 👍🏻
@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2023):
Good to hear 😄 . It's probably a query which needs some extra joins (which i do not like)
@ghunti commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2023):
I have the same issue running 1.29.0
@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2023):
Which is logical, since the issue is still open ;)
@xKugeki commented on GitHub (Aug 1, 2023):
Are there any new information about bug fixing this problem ^^?
Or workarounds with groups enabled + Live Sync :)
@BlackDex commented on GitHub (Aug 1, 2023):
Not from my part yet. I have not found the time or will to try and tackle this specific issue.
I have some ideas to try and use sub-select queries to maybe tackle this in a bit nice way instead of creating complex joins.
But not yet started on it. So if somebody else finds this an interesting item to pickup, please do not hesitate, there is a
help-wantedlabel there for a reason ;)