fix(files_sharing): Show remote shares as external

[nfebe]

Description

pick 4b68caa fix(files_sharing): Show remote shares in external shares section
pick 62b77c6 perf(files_sharing): Change sharing filtering from O(3n) to O(n)

Screenshots

Before	After

Resolves : #51226

• ...

Checklist

• Code is properly formatted
• Sign-off message is added to all commits
• Tests (unit, integration, api and/or acceptance) are included
• Screenshots before/after for front-end changes
• Documentation (manuals or wiki) has been updated or is not required
• Backports requested where applicable (ex: critical bugfixes)

[nfebe]

/compile

[AndyScherzinger]

Looping in @maximelehericy @jancborchardt and @ArtificialOwl to check this also works nicely in a Global Scale setup where federated shared (optionally?) should be seen as internal shares.

[kesselb]

Case 1: Existing shares are sorted properly ✅
Case 2: A new federated shares is added to the external shares list ❌

Screencast.From.2025-04-25.12-42-42.webm

[kesselb]

#52423 (comment)

[nfebe]

/compile

[maximelehericy]

Hi @nfebe , for global scale instances, in certain cases, what is expected is having all accounts considered as internal. Can you holdthis PR until we figured out a way to handle your case and the GS one ?

[sorbaugh]

Hi @nfebe , for global scale instances, in certain cases, what is expected is having all accounts considered as internal. Can you holdthis PR until we figured out a way to handle your case and the GS one ?

@jancborchardt an idea would be some kind of switch. Is this ok or is there maybe a better idea? Would need your input so @nfebe knows how to adjust 🙏

[jancborchardt]

@jancborchardt an idea would be some kind of switch. Is this ok or is there maybe a better idea?

@sorbaugh a switch sounds fine ("Treat remote shares as internal shares"), if it can’t be done automatically through some means like binding to another existing sharing setting or some other setup or license aspect?

And considering @maximelehericy’s comment as well:

for global scale instances, in certain cases, what is expected is having all accounts considered as internal.

There might be some other things to adjust as well. What comes to mind is removing the text "(remote)" after the name. This should then be bound to the same logic.

[susnux]

Iirc we treat federation different with global scale anyways so we could just check if global scale is enabled and if it is then we just treat any remote user as internal at least for the sharing sidebar maybe this could be an option so we don't need any UI option.

(At least all the lookup logic is changed with GS enabled)

[nfebe]

Hi @nfebe , for global scale instances, in certain cases, what is expected is having all accounts considered as internal. Can you holdthis PR until we figured out a way to handle your case and the GS one ?

Hi @maximelehericy thanks for the input. For the majority of use cases and users this is a "bug" starting from when the sidebar was split, a switch, or any other solution can follow via a follow up ticket but the fix of first treating remote shares as external should be pushed forward (imo).

[nfebe]

/backport to stable31