proposal(www): allow providers to make access keys shareable.

[daniellacosse]

Similar to #1830, this PR extends the extra field now with the ability for providers to enable end users to share their access keys with others:

{
  host: '10.0.0.24',
  port: 123,
  method: 'chacha20-ietf-poly1305',
  tag: 'Fake Unreachable Server',
  extra: {
     share: true
  }
}

#1830 and this PR in tandem enable the following scenario:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 18 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (69bdfd7) 32% compared to head (f2ac0af) 32%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/www/app/app.ts	0%	15 Missing ⚠️
...servers_view/server_list_item/server_card/index.ts	0%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                            Coverage Diff                             @@
##           daniellacosse/provider_message_and_contact   #1836   +/-   ##
==========================================================================
- Coverage                                          32%     32%   -1%     
==========================================================================
  Files                                              45      45           
  Lines                                            2620    2637   +17     
  Branches                                          342     347    +5     
==========================================================================
+ Hits                                              859     861    +2     
- Misses                                           1761    1776   +15     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apple	15% <ø> (ø)
ios	15% <ø> (ø)
maccatalyst	15% <ø> (ø)
macos	15% <ø> (ø)
unittests	32% <5%> (-1%)	⬇️
www	40% <5%> (-1%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[daniellacosse]

Need to test this on multiple platforms!

[fortuna]

What Chrome version are we using with Electron? Compare with https://caniuse.com/?search=navigator.share

[daniellacosse]

I believe it's over 100, we should be okay - but I will test to confirm once we're aligned on this idea

[sbruens]

For this and #1830, if we're going to use the extra value for different configuration options, should we avoid non-object types at the top-level of extra to avoid it becoming a long grab-bag list of properties? I could imagine the sharing options to expand in future, such that a separate sharing key:value configuration object would be useful:

{
  "host": "10.0.0.24",
  "port": 123,
  "method": "chacha20-ietf-poly1305",
  "tag": "Fake Unreachable Server",
  "extra": {
    "sharing": {
      "enabled": true
    },
    "contact": {
      "messageContent": "We are experiencing increased demand.",
      "messageType": "warning",
      "email": "d@niellacos.se"
    }
  }
}

[fortuna]

What Chrome version are we using with Electron? Compare with https://caniuse.com/?search=navigator.share

[fortuna]

Maybe it should be called shareable, to indicate that the key is shareable. With ephemeral keys, access keys may not be shared.

Also, we could add this to the static keys as well.

[fortuna]

I do worry about extending our bad config format that doesn't differentiate service and transport configuration, and has a very rigid transport configuration. I would like us to not get stuck with it.
At a minimum we should have our own internal format that is more sensible and can be mapped from the serialized formats.

[daniellacosse]

I hear you, but I wonder the degree to which we're tied to SIPOO2 already? I mean people use the client to connect to other shadowsocks servers all the time.

How about this - if we don't block adding these features to the access keys on inventing a new format I promise to draft a proposal for an outline:// config that we can all iterate on. Then I'll replace ShadowsocksConfig with a less overengineered solution that also handles outline2sskey

[daniellacosse]

here I already started https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FnhjpEMWvikGPhKjfH75Y-UYT7RQlqa1z_yycmL5Pow/edit?tab=t.0

[daniellacosse]

For this and #1830, if we're going to use the extra value for different configuration options, should we avoid non-object types at the top-level of extra to avoid it becoming a long grab-bag list of properties? I could imagine the sharing options to expand in future, such that a separate sharing key:value configuration object would be useful:

{
  "host": "10.0.0.24",
  "port": 123,
  "method": "chacha20-ietf-poly1305",
  "tag": "Fake Unreachable Server",
  "extra": {
    "sharing": {
      "enabled": true
    },
    "contact": {
      "messageContent": "We are experiencing increased demand.",
      "messageType": "warning",
      "email": "d@niellacos.se"
    }
  }
}

For this and #1830, if we're going to use the extra value for different configuration options, should we avoid non-object types at the top-level of extra to avoid it becoming a long grab-bag list of properties? I could imagine the sharing options to expand in future, such that a separate sharing key:value configuration object would be useful:

{
  "host": "10.0.0.24",
  "port": 123,
  "method": "chacha20-ietf-poly1305",
  "tag": "Fake Unreachable Server",
  "extra": {
    "sharing": {
      "enabled": true
    },
    "contact": {
      "messageContent": "We are experiencing increased demand.",
      "messageType": "warning",
      "email": "d@niellacos.se"
    }
  }
}

I -believe- extra values are meant to be strings, but there's nothing stopping us from passing through base64'd json i suppose!