Skip to content
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

#825: Allow passing explicit connection to 'Bucket.{list_blobs,make public}' #856

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 11, 2015
Merged

#825: Allow passing explicit connection to 'Bucket.{list_blobs,make public}' #856

merged 4 commits into from
May 11, 2015

Conversation

tseaver
Copy link
Contributor

@tseaver tseaver commented May 1, 2015

Requires #853.

See #825.

@tseaver tseaver added the api: storage Issues related to the Cloud Storage API. label May 1, 2015
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. label May 1, 2015
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 7b99797 on tseaver:825-storage_bucket_list_blobs_make_public-explicit_connection into 8b5c5b9 on GoogleCloudPlatform:master.

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented May 4, 2015

Ping me on this when we resolve #853

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented May 4, 2015

Rebased against updated branch for #853.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 1612c84 on tseaver:825-storage_bucket_list_blobs_make_public-explicit_connection into * on GoogleCloudPlatform:master*.

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented May 6, 2015

Rebased again against updated branch for #853.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 219dcc6 on tseaver:825-storage_bucket_list_blobs_make_public-explicit_connection into 73a341c on GoogleCloudPlatform:master.

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented May 6, 2015

@dhermes any remaining issues?

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented May 6, 2015

Ditto here, was waiting on diffbase.

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented May 6, 2015

@dhermes I rebased it this morning on the latest from #853.

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented May 6, 2015

OIC, you'd like a rebase against master.

def __init__(self, bucket, extra_params=None):
def __init__(self, bucket, extra_params=None, connection=None):
if connection is None:
connection = bucket.connection

This comment was marked as spam.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 5ed6c7e on tseaver:825-storage_bucket_list_blobs_make_public-explicit_connection into aafcd2a on GoogleCloudPlatform:master.

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented May 7, 2015

Ideally, the backend would have a special-purpose ACL for blobs where they "inherit"/"acquire" the permissions from their bucket; one could then leave them in that state as they were created, and toggle them all public / private just by manipulating the bucket's ACL.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 8d6ef05 on tseaver:825-storage_bucket_list_blobs_make_public-explicit_connection into aafcd2a on GoogleCloudPlatform:master.

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented May 7, 2015

Unfortunately that ideal doesn't exist.

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented May 11, 2015

LGTM

tseaver added a commit that referenced this pull request May 11, 2015
…ke_public-explicit_connection

#825: Allow passing explicit connection to 'Bucket.{list_blobs,make public}'
@tseaver tseaver merged commit 290b09e into googleapis:master May 11, 2015
@tseaver tseaver deleted the 825-storage_bucket_list_blobs_make_public-explicit_connection branch May 11, 2015 17:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api: storage Issues related to the Cloud Storage API. cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants