-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[storage blob] Change from isNode to isNodeCompatible #29083
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ export { | |
isBrowser, | ||
isBun, | ||
isNode, | ||
isNodeLike, | ||
isDeno, | ||
isReactNative, | ||
isWebWorker, | ||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ import { | |
PipelineResponse, | ||
SendRequest, | ||
} from "@azure/core-rest-pipeline"; | ||
import { isNode } from "@azure/core-util"; | ||
import { isNodeLike } from "@azure/core-util"; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. do we really need to adopt this right away? I think if we're reverting the behavior in core-util we should do the migration off the deprecated check in its own PR and we can unblock customers by shipping core-util with the fixed behavior |
||
import { AnonymousCredential } from "./credentials/AnonymousCredential"; | ||
import { BlobClient, BlobDeleteOptions, BlobSetTierOptions } from "./Clients"; | ||
import { AccessTier } from "./generatedModels"; | ||
|
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ export class BlobBatch { | |
|
||
if ( | ||
typeof urlOrBlobClient === "string" && | ||
((isNode && credentialOrOptions instanceof StorageSharedKeyCredential) || | ||
((isNodeLike && credentialOrOptions instanceof StorageSharedKeyCredential) || | ||
credentialOrOptions instanceof AnonymousCredential || | ||
isTokenCredential(credentialOrOptions)) | ||
) { | ||
|
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ export class BlobBatch { | |
|
||
if ( | ||
typeof urlOrBlobClient === "string" && | ||
((isNode && credentialOrTier instanceof StorageSharedKeyCredential) || | ||
((isNodeLike && credentialOrTier instanceof StorageSharedKeyCredential) || | ||
credentialOrTier instanceof AnonymousCredential || | ||
isTokenCredential(credentialOrTier)) | ||
) { | ||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
GH did not let me comment over the right line (69) but I wonder if we should mark
isNode
as@deprecated
so package owners know to useisNodeCompatible
insteadThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's possible, @xirzec any thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Feels a bit odd to me having
isDeno
andisBun
around while deprecatingisNode
. I wonder if we will ever run into a scenario in future where we will be wanting to check for Node specifically, intentionally excluding Deno/Bun?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I think we should deprecate the existing one if we're reverting the behavior to match isNodeCompatible (really just exporting it twice with different names.)
If we think there's a case for "is actually node" then perhaps we can use a worse name for it? like isNodeRuntime ? And then clarify in the doc comments all the options
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh if we're going to change the behavior of
isNode
to be the same as the new flag then I support deprecating but that doesn't seem to be what we're doing in this PR?