Problems with creating secret with mount name

[rayshoo]

Summary

When creating a secret with a mount name, unexpected behaviors occur.

Steps To Reproduce

$ gp mounts add test C:\Users\raysh\AppData\Local\gopass\stores\test
$ gp mounts list
gopass (C:\Users\raysh\AppData\Local\gopass\stores\root)
└── test (C:\Users\raysh\AppData\Local\gopass\stores\test)
$ gp insert test

Expected behavior

# It seems like the shadowed secret should be deleted, but an error occurred.
$ gp remove test
☠ Are you sure you would like to delete ["test"]? [y/N/q]: y
Error: Can not delete "test": can not delete a mount point. Use `gopass mounts remove test`

Environment

• OS: windows10
• gopass Version: gopass 1.15.7 go1.20.6 windows amd64
• Installation method: chocolatey

Creating a secret with the mount name creates a .gpg file in the repository with no file name. This works differently than creating shadowed files in subfolders. Is this behavior as intended? I am currently developing a GUI tool that works with gopass, but this method has led to unexpected situations, and gopass cli also has this problem with secret remove.

[dominikschulz]

@rayshoo Thanks for reporting this issue. This might be an unhandled corner case. I'll have a look.

[rayshoo]

While modifying the code of the tool I was developing to respond to this method of gopass, I recognized the following problem. As in the example above, if the password is inserted as a sub mount rather than a root mount, viewing functions such as show are possible, but deletion is not possible.

However, I realized that even if someone changed the delete function to work, access would become impossible if this store was mounted as root rather than as a submount.

# unmount and mount on root
[mounts]
path = C:\Users\chan\AppData\Local\gopass\stores\test # This store has a .gpg file on its root path

# cannot access the .gpg file of the test store root path mounted as root.
$ gp show . # This command looks for `..gpg` files and does not find `.gpg`.
$ gp show # wrong command

Therefore, it appears that this is not the intended situation. I am of the opinion that it would be better to not be able to access the mount name at all rather than allowing it to be deleted. I'm not good at English conversation, so I apologize for any inconvenience caused by communicating through a translator. thank you