-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
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
feat: implement GrpcStorageImpl#deleteDefaultAcl #1807
Conversation
.collect(ImmutableList.toImmutableList()); | ||
if (newDefaultAcls.equals(currentDefaultAcls)) { | ||
// we didn't actually filter anything out, no need to send an RPC, simply return false | ||
return false; |
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.
Add a comment into the Storage interface javadocs that calls out this particular case
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.
What should we add to the javadocs?
This is sort of specific to the fact that we're emulating what was previously done via a single blind RPC.
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.
Looks like I glossed over the need to make a request to get Acl List first; Why didn't you call the RPC to delete Acl instead of querying existing bucketdefaultAcl first?
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.
We are patching the full default acl list of the bucket.
- We get the full list
- filter out any existing acl for the specified entity
- If there is no change, quickly return (this line)
- Otherwise, create an update bucket request
- Send update bucket request
- return true if the acl is no longer in the buckets default acl from the response
da718a5
to
cb0f538
Compare
3008c77
to
9d05192
Compare
9d05192
to
17be559
Compare
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.
Thanks for the clarification LGTM
No description provided.