minoc: filename override mechanism #551
Conversation
maybe not require banning colon from path components of artifact.uri
| //log.debug("base url for site " + storageSite.getResourceID() + ": " + baseURL); | ||
| if (protocolCompat(proto, baseURL)) { | ||
| // // no plain anon URL for put: !anon or anon+token | ||
| boolean gen = (!anon || (anon && authToken != null)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From what I'm seeing, the pushTo and pullFrom loops are pretty similar except this and the file name override. Would it be possible (or worth it) to avoid the code duplication?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe, but iirc there were enough subtle differences that made that more complex. I think you originally wrote it and convinced me of that, although now there's plenty of git blame to go around :-)
| Assert.assertEquals(sites.size(), result1.size()); | ||
| Assert.assertTrue(result1.containsAll(sites)); | ||
|
|
||
| List<StorageSite> result2 = ProtocolsGenerator.prioritizePullFromSites(sites); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is just testing that pull from prioritization is random by those two sets not being the same order
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. Does it mean that it is possible to give a false positive when random randomly returns the same order?
| assertCorrectPath("token/cadc:vault/uuid:fo/something.fits", "cadc:vault/uuid", "token", "something.fits"); | ||
|
|
||
| assertCorrectPath("cadc:vault/uuid:/something.fits", "cadc:vault/uuid:/something.fits", null, null); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does it handle the cadc:vault/uuid:fo/ case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this just tests that extra colons do not cause parts of the path to be lost (are preserved in the artifact uri); it is easy to implement the extraction in ways that lose stuff (eg if you split on colon and then it isn't a :fo/)
the previous test checks that :fo/ is extracted and becomes the override filename
I probably could have used a non-vault looking uri to make it more obvious that it was "don't break other uses of colon in the uri".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for being too vague, what I've meant is the incorrect case in which the URL ends in :fo/.
No description provided.