GSP-729: Redesign HTTP Signer #729
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #729 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 12.50% 12.50%
=======================================
Files 22 22
Lines 1479 1479
=======================================
Hits 185 185
Misses 1287 1287
Partials 7 7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| - `Read` and `Write` (add `Multiparter` related operations if needed) are the supported signature operations for now. Other operations SHOULD be introduced by new GSP. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So we will only a HTTPSigner instead of MultipartHTTPSinger, AppendHTTPSigner and so on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should group them by interfaces? And for StoragerHTTPSigner, I'm not sure whether we need to add operations for all the non-local functions or only for read/write temporarily (as some services only support add signatures to URLs that are contained in PUT and GET requests, or only for GET)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer StorageHTTPSigner.
How about adding them one by one, and leave this question for the smarted us in the further to decide?
Read/Write is enough so far.
Co-authored-by: Xuanwo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Xuanwo <[email protected]>
|
Mostly LGTM, let's create a tracking issue for it! |
|
Let's rock! |
No description provided.