Skip to content
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

coreapi: Basic object API implementation #4492

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 30, 2018
Merged

Conversation

magik6k
Copy link
Member

@magik6k magik6k commented Dec 14, 2017

TODO:

  • Review
  • Docs
  • Tests

@magik6k magik6k added the topic/core-api Topic core-api label Dec 14, 2017
@magik6k magik6k requested a review from a user December 14, 2017 22:57
@ghost ghost assigned magik6k Dec 14, 2017
@ghost ghost added the status/in-progress In progress label Dec 14, 2017
// DataSize int
// CumulativeSize int
// }
AddLink(ctx context.Context, base Path, name string, child Path, create bool) (Node, error) //TODO: make create optional
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll make this optional after the approach to optional params in #4477 is reviewed/accepted

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No need for arg names in an interface definition

}

func (api *ObjectAPI) Put(context.Context, coreiface.Node) error {
return errors.New("todo") // TODO: what should this method take? Should we just redir to dag-put?f
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not even sure if we want to keep this method, it seems to me that all of it's use cases are covered by Dag.Put

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should still implement it -- it can call DagAPI.Put() underneath

@magik6k magik6k mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2017
51 tasks
Get(context.Context, Path) (Node, error)
Data(context.Context, Path) (io.Reader, error)
Links(context.Context, Path) ([]*Link, error)
Stat(context.Context, Path) (*ObjectStat, error)
Copy link

@ghost ghost Dec 17, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've been pondering in #4418 whether we should return a resolved Path in almost any place where we already have it resolved internally anyway. In some cases it saves a ton of additional resolve roundtrips, imagine we use the returned Path to pass it directly into another Core API function.

In addition, this is also useful in the case of functions that modify existing objects, e.g. SetData or AddLink. If I call it with /ipfs/QmFoo/a/b/c, I'd like it to return /ipfs/QmNewHash/a/b/c.

(Regardless of that, Put() should definitely return a Path.)

type ObjectAPI CoreAPI

func (api *ObjectAPI) New(ctx context.Context) (coreiface.Node, error) {
node := new(dag.ProtoNode)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On the CLI/API, object new takes a template argument which can be unixfs-dir for a directory. We can do this here similarly to the KeyAPI.WithType() option in #4477.

}

func (api *ObjectAPI) AddLink(ctx context.Context, base coreiface.Path, name string, child coreiface.Path, create bool) (coreiface.Node, error) {
rootNd, err := api.core().ResolveNode(ctx, base)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's call these variables base instead of root -- the root of /ipfs/QmFoo/a/b would be QmFoo, but the base of this operation is b

Copy link

@ghost ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks super good :) Left a comment or two. I think that's all the object stuff needed for extracting the gateway, thanks!

@magik6k magik6k force-pushed the feat/coreapi/object branch 2 times, most recently from 29e178a to 2ac9768 Compare January 1, 2018 16:47
}

// ObjectStat provides information about dag nodes
type ObjectStat struct {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should I wrap this into an interface for consistency?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fine - given that the object API is quasi-frozen (it's the old merkledag/dag-pb structure), it's very unlikely this struct will ever have any functions attached to it.


func ObjectNewOptions(opts ...ObjectNewOption) (*ObjectNewSettings, error) {
options := &ObjectNewSettings{
Type: "empty",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The default for this should be "unixfs-dir" as in ipfs object new --help

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The default for this should be "unixfs-dir" as in ipfs object new --help

Ah, nevermind, I understand :)

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 12, 2018

This LGTM 👍 - pretty cool!

Next let's extract coreiface to its own package, so we can get go-ipfs-api going.

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <[email protected]>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <[email protected]>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <[email protected]>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <[email protected]>
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Łukasz Magiera <[email protected]>
@whyrusleeping whyrusleeping merged commit 4d8b3c9 into master Jan 30, 2018
@ghost ghost removed the status/in-progress In progress label Jan 30, 2018
@whyrusleeping whyrusleeping deleted the feat/coreapi/object branch January 30, 2018 21:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic/core-api Topic core-api
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants