Macpass: Port of the synchronisation feature

[alexanderadam]

I think it is essential for some people who wants to use it together:

http://keepass.info/help/v2/sync.html

Thank you very much

[mstarke]

Seems reasonable =)

[fenderle]

I second that - extremely important feature. Would code it myself if I had any clue of Objective C and the wohle OS-X thing.

[dmsnell]

I'm new to Objective C, but I'd be willing to help out if you could give me some guidance on your code base.

[mstarke]

The synchronisation features needs support for history management. KeePassKit is able to read and write the history elements for a given entry, but editing with MacPass just skips history element creation (since the undo-redo-system makes this rather hard). So the first thing one should do is to come up with a way to enable history-aware editing of entries. There's some rough ideas outlines (editing button, start/end editing in the EntryInspectorViewController but nothing is finished) we can talk in the IRC channel if you want any specifics or just email me.

[tipyn]

Thirded - this would make MacPass pretty well rounded. I'm currently a Mac user out of three people - both of them use Linux and Windows and KeePass works fine between them but I've come along with my Mac and put a bit of a spanner in the works. Any idea how long it'll be until db synchronisation will be a feature?

[petep]

+1 . This feature is also becoming a showstopper for me in an otherwise excellent product.

[h-svab]

+1

[tecgen]

+1 :)

[ricard33]

:+1:

[oscarfroberg]

I'll throw $20 in there for syncing. :+1:

[bhawker]

+1, this would be a killer feature.

[csjones]

:+1:

[holle]

+1

[costerwi]

+1, this would simplify my life

[lgraf]

+1

[realdubb]

👍

[mstarke]

See https://github.com/MacPass/KeePassKit/projects/2

[woyczek]

The Keepass XML model includes a timestamp for last modification.
It may be lossy, but may be used to compare two entries from two files.

I did such a thing, to re-synchronize databases, with simple shell and XML export/import.

It may be used with warnings, but could be adapted to the live keepass data model.

[mstarke]

This features should be implemented the same way Keepass does it, that is, it uses modification, access, moved dates, deleted objects and entry history elements. The XML format is simply the inner unencrypted XML file KDBX files consist of. The upcoming KDBX4 format will have some modifications to this but the XML format for import/export still holds all information available. The feature should work on the internal structure to get the best user experience and is very helpful to ease the "reload after external changes" workflow. An external XML based process should actual do exactly the same but has the disadvantage of being external.

[srameko]

+1, because if you want to sync two KDBX there is no support. XML import just replace current database. Thx.

[WebWeave]

+1
It's really a miss that MacPass doens't have this.

[mariusmuntean]

I'm also missing this feature. Just recently I ran the portable Windows version of KeePass with Mono to sync multiple databases. It wasn't nice.

[ElizarovEugene]

Sorry for #636
The same I think this functionality is very necessary

[mstarke]

Current continuous release has sync on file change as well via a Merge action.

[mariusmuntean]

@mstarke I'm really happy for this change.
Can we also have a view with the differences? Even if merging succeeded. Otherwise I don't know if I want the changes or not.

Keep up the good work.

[mstarke]

The differences view is AFAIK not present in any KeePass application since the merge algorithm is designed to preserve data. Furthermore the rationale behind this is, that most of the time you are the one introducing changes by merging two a databases you use. That said, I get your desire to see differences. It's easily possible to add the view but adding an option to reject the changes is a tad more complicated. Also, consider the extreme where your database is shared and edited by many users constantly. You then would get a "Merge review" screen a lot and I would wager that this completely defeats the purpose. What might be a viable alternative is a transcript of database actions. This way you can review the data level changes in a compact linear form but lack the possibility to interact with the merge process.

[mstarke]

0.7 officially introduces merging so this feature is implemented. What should be considered is a "dry merge" approach to view and even reject changes.

[mstarke]

Separate issue for merge-view #701