-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 195
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
Revert "Revert "S3 relay interface"" #853
Merged
cody-littley
merged 12 commits into
master
from
revert-850-revert-833-s3-relay-interface
Nov 1, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a342c6f
Revert "Revert "S3 relay interface" (#850)"
cody-littley fe82f90
Remove debug code.
cody-littley 5139717
Temporarily disable code
cody-littley 42c1dbd
Disable more stuff
cody-littley c78fa06
Disable more code.
cody-littley f95b3c2
Experimentation.
cody-littley 108e540
Disable more
cody-littley 3aa2fb0
Fix flag.
cody-littley 22304d9
Revert changes.
cody-littley 9e4b3c1
Made suggested changes.
cody-littley 6a393c6
Merge branch 'master' into revert-850-revert-833-s3-relay-interface
cody-littley 39a8a8a
Made suggested changes.
cody-littley 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
These seem like S3 specific configs, but they are in the common shared aws config. Should we consider keeping this one only for parameters that are shared between all the aws clients we use (s3, dynamo, etc)?
So perhaps create a config specific in
aws/s3/config.go
which would have these fragments and would embed the sharedaws.ClientConfig
params?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.
Your suggestion makes sense. The core difficulty is that
aws.ClientConfig
is currently used to build an S3 client bydisperser/cmd/apiserver
,disperser/cmd/batcher
, anddisperser/cmd/dataapi
. Even harder is the fact that these use cases use theaws.ClientConfig
object to instantiate both an s3 client and a dynamoDB client, meaning that if I nestaws.ClientConfig
inside S3 config then it gets duplicated.I'm sure it's possible to untangle the mess I describe above, but my concern is scope creep for this PR. I've got some ideas for how we might simplify the way we manage our project's configuration, would you be interested in discussing this offline?
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.
Yes, interested in discussing, no need for scope creep I agree, since these are only used by us internally so its fine to have breaking changes.
That being said, I don't see why having the duplicate ClientConfig is bad. In fact, one could want an s3 client and dynamoDB client with different aws configs (say the dbs live in different regions for eg).