Provide content-type while putting object to S3 #204
Merged
Conversation
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
…g), we need to also provide the content-type of the file. This could come crucial in cases like when the uploaded file (let's say an XML file) is going to be used by a specific application later.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Issue #194:
S3WritableByteChannel does not consider contentType while putting an object into the bucket
Description of changes:
Upon putting an object into the S3 bucket (for instance, while copying), we need to also provide the content-type of the file. This could come crucial in cases like when the uploaded file (let's say an XML file) is going to be used by a specific application later.
While checking the implementation of
PutObjectRequest, I didn't fine anywhere thatcontentTypeacquires a default value, so ifFiles::probeContentTypereturns a null value, it is the same as not calling the builder method. Hence I don't see any negative side-effects with this change.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.