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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Access delegation #1033
Access delegation #1033
Changes from 13 commits
b929c2e
e1d9f64
f3cfd37
989bd14
2045f83
cf54856
a197d28
a425b69
10cc361
07325e5
f4fc2ec
35c7cd3
da3490b
238df70
cf0dc4a
ae4a677
da322e6
0c4feec
c1cc3c0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
It looks like we already have a way of setting custom headers in
_extract_headers_from_properties
. If I understand it correctly, if we set a property like:header.X-Iceberg-Access-Delegation = remote-signing
then this should set the header "X-Iceberg-Access-Delegation" asremote-signing
.I think we could achieve this by setting the default header values, and then setting the property based values after the default values are set:
What do you think of this approach over introducing a different property?
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.
IMHO having an explicit and documented property is better than setting custom header. But I can change if you think it's better.
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.
@sungwy I tried your code, but some tests failed with:
I guess the idea is not allow default header override. Thus I guess having a dedicate property still the best option. What are you thoughts on this?
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.
Hi @guitcastro - I appreciate you giving it a go. That error message is interesting because its specific to the
Content-Type
property, Did you intend to overwrite theContent-Type
as well?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.
@guitcastro I was able to make @sungwy's suggestion work in guitcastro#1, without breaking existing tests.