-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Fix data sync request model; Add find_filesystem_boundary utility #15
Conversation
35e76ff
to
d491a85
Compare
5cd42a0
to
dca355c
Compare
3a507fd
to
57dba3e
Compare
The previous version of this model returned `config` and `task` properties that did not follow typing properly. This commit attempts to fix things by making the `config` and `task` properties return the correct "types". It also adds in missing fields in the `DataSyncConfig` model. This commit also adds a new field to the `DataSyncConfig` model called `remote_to_local_config` which allows more fine-grained controlled over remote (S3) to local filesystem transfers. Specifically, the temporary location where data sync operations download individual objects. Fix
57dba3e
to
2e58893
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.
I left a nit comment, but let me know your thoughts
@@ -104,17 +121,33 @@ class DataSyncConfig(SchemaModel): | |||
force: bool = custom_field(default=False, mm_field=BooleanField()) | |||
size_only: bool = custom_field(default=False, mm_field=BooleanField()) | |||
fail_if_missing: bool = custom_field(default=True, mm_field=BooleanField()) | |||
remote_to_local_config: RemoteToLocalConfig = custom_field( |
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.
nit: do you think for the sake of making clean serialized content, we make this config optional? and just having a getter to return a default object instead if not specified?
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.
I just worry about the size of the serialized object if we do 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.
The RemoteToLocalConfig
is not that big. If we do end up hitting an issue in the future with this, bring up this thread and I will own up to it!
See commit messages for details