1Password X Beta blocked due to local vaults

I am using 1PX in Brave and 1P Desktop both in most recent Beta version (just checked for updates) on MacOS 10.15.2. In my desktop I have a local vault that I can and want not ditch. I learned to tolerate the always reappearing message that local vaults are not supported. But now 1PX is blocked as shown in the picture. Why can 1PX not just simply ignore the fact that I am using also a local vault? Can’t be that much of an issue.


1Password Version: Not Provided
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: Not Provided
Sync Type: Not Provided

Comments

  • Thanks for reaching out @Tabaluga! I'm really sorry about the obstruction this must have been to your workflow.

    It sounds like you already know standalone vaults aren't currently supported in 1Password X and thereby Desktop App Integration can't be used with standalone vaults enabled. So I think just turning off Desktop App Integration in the 1Password X settings page should do the trick — That'll stop the desktop app and 1Password X from attempting to communicate with each other to share accounts and vaults. To do so:

    1. "Right click" the 1Password icon in the browser toolbar menu.
    2. Choose "Settings."
    3. Bump the slider next to "Integrate with 1Password for Mac" to the left (off).

    I hope that helps in the meantime, but I know this behavior is still undesirable and I think we can do better here. Can you tell me what happens when you click on the link at the bottom of the pop-up where it says Erfahren Sie mehr...?

    Cheers!

  • Tabaluga
    Tabaluga
    Community Member
    edited January 2020

    Hello @cecelia

    1PX is only an option for me as Long as it works together with general unlocking of 1P desktop. That’s the reason I am only using it together with the Brave browser. In Firefox and Safari I am using the normal browser extension since 1PX does not unlock together with the Desktop App.

    And without this the superior functionality of filling logins that 1PX provides does not overcome the annoying unlocking in every browser and over and over when I close a browser an open it later.

    I am working a lot with desktop app since I am also using it for my all day note taking.

    My local vault contains data that I don’t want to have in an online storage. So I am keeping it offline and it is no Problem for me to have those not in the 1PX. But I don’t get the the reason why 1PX can not simply ignore the local vaults in my desktop app. I mean, is it that problematic to just don’t care? It shouldn’t make a difference for 1PX if there is a local vault or not. the only information it needs from the desktop app is: locked or unlocked

    That button you are mentioning brings up the settings window of the desktop app where I can disable the local vault functionality. But for me the decision is clear I would rather ditch 1PX than the local vault and simply go back to the normal browser extension. That is a pitty since 1PX is really good in case of browser login filling. Better than the extension but completely useless without the global unlock. At least for me.

  • kaitlyn
    kaitlyn
    1Password Alumni

    Hi @Tabaluga! I'm really grateful for you sharing your use case with us. That helped me understand things tremendously, so I appreciate it. :)

    I've passed your feedback along to the rest of my team. While I'm not positive that what you desire is entirely possible, I'll share everything you've shared with me so our developers can understand your reasoning behind the request to use 1Password X while having a local vault in 1Password for Mac. As far as right now goes, it does sound like the 1Password extension would suit your needs better. In the meantime, we'll discuss it internally and see what we can do in regards to 1Password X.

    Thanks so much for reaching out and letting us know about your experience!

    ref: dev/core/core#1017

  • GeorgeCox
    GeorgeCox
    Community Member

    Why doesn't 1Password-X just ignore standalone vaults? Surely that would be better than completely disabling the UI that would otherwise be displayed by clicking the icon.

  • Yeah, that'd be ideal for sure, @GeorgeCox. I'm not sure yet what the obstacles are, but we do have an issue filed with the developers, so it is on their radar. We'll have to see what they come up with. Thanks for taking the time to share your feedback <3.

  • Tabaluga
    Tabaluga
    Community Member

    Hi 1P Team! Any news in this case? Maybe a statement from the developers? 😬

  • @Tabaluga

    I'm not aware of any plans to change this behavior. I wish I had more encouraging news, but standalone vaults haven't been advertised in 2+ years. I find it unlikely that we'll be putting fourth development efforts to better handle them with regard to 1Password X. I will certainly let the development team know that there is still interest in this so they can continue to monitor the feedback on the situation.

    Ben

  • Tabaluga
    Tabaluga
    Community Member

    Hi @Ben

    Thank you for your response. Honestly I hope 1P will overthink that stand point. The users of 1PX are your constantly paying customers since they are using a 1P subscription. My personal opinion is that it should be possible for 1P to solve that minor issue for us subscribers.

    Since 1PX is actually working in that state the only thing that needs to be fixed is that the dialogue by clicking on the icon is blocked with the above picture. When I click into a login text field 1PX presents my existing logins and lets me fill them. So it is just a matter of not blocking the window to let me be able to change the active vault (in my case “all vaults” is the default) or change the settings of 1PX. I (and I am pretty sure most other users that care for this) don’t want the local vault to be available in 1PX. I just need 1PX not to block the settings window the rest already works fine.

  • I understand your position @Tabaluga. I can appreciate that thought. As I say I'll let development know... perhaps there is some room for consideration.

    Ben

This discussion has been closed.