[feat] allow any shell command scope

[LIMPIX31]

Describe the problem

It's really very lacking. I can't ask the user to specify the path to the executable, tauri just won't let me do it. Why can't I allow this in the same way as for fs for example.

Describe the solution you'd like

Make similar to fs, something like **

Alternatives considered

I hope I get these alternatives here, I can't bear to invent what's already there.

Additional context

What are the reasons? Why doesn't it still work that way? What workarounds can I use?

[amrbashir]

This is a security measure. The webview is insecure and allowing arbitrary access to the shell is really dangerous.

Can you elaborate a bit more on your use-case? what app are you trying to access through the shell?

[FabianLars]

a middle ground could be to add a way to extend the scope on the rust side similar to how it's possible for the fs/asset scopes

[LIMPIX31]

This is a security measure. The webview is insecure and allowing arbitrary access to the shell is really dangerous.

Can you elaborate a bit more on your use-case? what app are you trying to access through the shell?

I want to run java. But it requires java and JAVA_HOME in the PATH. I have automated the installation of java, but I can't run it because I have to specify the path to the executable, but the shell api doesn't allow this

a middle ground could be to add a way to extend the scope on the rust side similar to how it's possible for the fs/asset scopes

It would be great if you could help me find a better workaround than rewriting the implementation. I'm not good in rust, this is what I use as a workaround, but it's a very crude solution, it only pipes stdout and can't be killed.

#[tauri::command]
pub fn spawn<R: Runtime>(
    app_handle: AppHandle<R>,
    binary: String,
    args: Vec<String>,
    cwd: String,
    std: String,
    errevent: String,
    close: String,
) {
  thread::spawn(move || {
    let mut child = match Command::new(binary)
    .args(args)
    .current_dir(cwd)
    .stdout(Stdio::piped())
    .stderr(Stdio::piped())
    .spawn() {
        Ok(child) => child,
        Err(err) => {
          let _ = app_handle.emit_all(&errevent, err.to_string());
          return
        }
    };

    let stdout = child.stdout.as_mut().unwrap();

    let mut stdout_buf = BufReader::new(stdout);

    loop {
      let mut out = String::new();
      let _ = match stdout_buf.read_line(&mut out) {
        Err(err) => app_handle.emit_all(&errevent, err.to_string()),
        Ok(bytes) => {
          let result = app_handle.emit_all(&std, &out);
          if bytes == 0 && out.is_empty() {
            break;
          }
          result
        }
      };
    }

    let exit_status = child.wait().expect("failed to wait on child process");
    let _ = app_handle.emit_all(&close, exit_status.code().unwrap_or(-1));
  });
}

[amrbashir]

you can just require your users to have Java installed and add it to PATH so you can just add java as the cmd in the scope

[LIMPIX31]

Hey, help with a workaround please

[RealHeart]

I need more than one java environment He can not run in the PATH Because Minecraft 1.17+ uses Java 17 but 1.16- uses Java 11/8 So I need the user to set the Java list and then determine which Java to use by version

Is it possible to set **/java to match all java programs

[Disservin]

I came across this issue today, I wanted to create a chess engine gui and the user can select any executable he wants and i want to spawn a process with that, for this case the user himself is responsible to provide a secure executable.

[LIMPIX31]

Can I expect this to be allowed soon?

I think this can be implemented via a plugin.

[yarrichar]

I would also like this. I would like to allow my users to enter an arbitrary command to execute. In essence I'm basically wanting to build a better terminal... kind of. The important part is that the commands are being explicitly entered by the user, and executed on their behalf.

The bit I don't get about this restriction is that it doesn't actually prevent Tauri programs from executing arbitrary code. I can still do it with a rust command. What it means is that anyone who wants to do it has to implement it themselves, and probably do a worse job - which is presumably a worse outcome for users.

[LIMPIX31]

I would also like this. I would like to allow my users to enter an arbitrary command to execute. In essence I'm basically wanting to build a better terminal... kind of. The important part is that the commands are being explicitly entered by the user, and executed on their behalf.

The bit I don't get about this restriction is that it doesn't actually prevent Tauri programs from executing arbitrary code. I can still do it with a rust command. What it means is that anyone who wants to do it has to implement it themselves, and probably do a worse job - which is presumably a worse outcome for users.

:rofl: It's just security, if you want to break it, write the word "confirm" a hundred lines long.

[Disservin]

It's probably to allow people to use unsanitized input in the command creation... which aint wrong but having some possibility to skip the validation would be beneficial.

The bit I don't get about this restriction is that it doesn't actually prevent Tauri programs from executing arbitrary code. I can still do it with a rust command. What it means is that anyone who wants to do it has to implement it themselves, and probably do a worse job - which is presumably a worse outcome for users.