clients
clients copied to clipboard
Enpass importer not properly importing androidapp:// fields - full description of fix
Enpass supports auto-filling in Android apps and saves the info as android://[email protected]
as part of the login data with type .Android#
which should be imported in BW as an URI with value androidapp://com.app.name
Below is an example from an Enpass exported .json. The BW importer should create an URI with value androidapp://com.adobe.scan.android
.
Currently the importer creates a custom field, passing both the field name and value as-is, i.e. custom field name Autofill Info
with value "android://7RrZ4-l3xyJjoX6Ah-5SkStZMHigXGbShZBuUeF6EZTb4sB-FlihphglJNv9VIF80UHBheD0ARYpULavVyoXsg==@com.adobe.scan.android"
I'm not yet familiar with the BW codebase to do a quick PR. Could a dev quickly patch this one? :)
{
"items": [
{
"auto_submit": 1,
"category": "login",
"favorite": 0,
"fields": [
{
"deleted": 0,
"label": "Location",
"order": 1,
"sensitive": 0,
"type": "url",
"uid": 5884,
"updated_at": 1494111213,
"value": "https://adobeid-na1.services.adobe.com",
"value_updated_at": 1494111213
},
{
"deleted": 0,
"label": "label",
"order": 2,
"sensitive": 0,
"type": "url",
"uid": 5887,
"updated_at": 1494111213,
"value": "website",
"value_updated_at": 1494111213
},
{
"deleted": 0,
"label": "url",
"order": 3,
"sensitive": 0,
"type": "url",
"uid": 5890,
"updated_at": 1494111213,
"value": "https://adobeid-na1.services.adobe.com",
"value_updated_at": 1494111213
},
{
"deleted": 0,
"label": "Autofill Info",
"order": 4,
"sensitive": 0,
"type": ".Android#",
"uid": 9228,
"updated_at": 1538529347,
"value": "android://7RrZ4-l3xyJjoX6Ah-5SkStZMHigXGbShZBuUeF6EZTb4sB-FlihphglJNv9VIF80UHBheD0ARYpULavVyoXsg==@com.adobe.scan.android",
"value_updated_at": 1538529347
},
{
"deleted": 0,
"label": "username",
"order": 5,
"sensitive": 0,
"type": "username",
"uid": 5894,
"updated_at": 1494111213,
"value": "<SNIPPED>",
"value_updated_at": 1494111213
},
{
"deleted": 0,
"label": "password",
"order": 6,
"sensitive": 1,
"type": "password",
"uid": 5897,
"updated_at": 1609122057,
"value": "<SNIPPED>",
"value_updated_at": 1494111213
}
],
"icon": {
"fav": "adobeid-na1.services.adobe.com",
"image": {
"file": "web/adobe.com"
},
"type": 1,
"uuid": ""
},
"note": "",
"subtitle": "https://adobeid-na1.services.adobe.com",
"template_type": "import.imported",
"title": "https://adobeid-na1.services.adobe.com",
"updated_at": 1589308277,
"uuid": "374b3d81-afb9-477e-a057-6ff2554e61cd"
}
]
}
Hi @aleqx, We're cleaning up our repositories in preparation for a major reorganization. Issues from last year will be marked as stale and closed after two weeks. If you still need help, comment to let us know and we'll look into it. Thanks!
If you still need help, comment to let us know and we'll look into it.
Commenting ... I find it a little odd (to be polite) that reports of bugs, who required time to be documented and reported to you, and who are meant to improve your product, are discarded by default, and you put the onus on the reporter to take extra time and effort to resurrect them and be deemed important enough for you to pay attention (pun). Some may see this as an attempt to shove bugs under the carpet to look better, which wouldn't be consistent with your reputation so far :). Given you have an automated process for this migration, you should migrate the open bug reports as well.
Hey aleqx thanks for the feedback, I've removed the stale label and I can understand where you're coming from. Rest assured that we don't regularly discard issues and the stale labelled was used here as a one-off and part of a bigger project to improve our ability to manage issues.