Support file scheme in open and experimental fs #4513
+23
−5
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
mstoykov
requested review from
inancgumus and
oleiade
and removed request for
a team
This apparently has never been supported which is likely due to nothing really returning absolute paths. After adding import.meta.resolve though this is changed. And there is really no reason why it shouldn't be supported. Fixes #4512
mstoykov
force-pushed
the
supportFileSchemeInOpen
branch
from
fad78fb to
fe8c539
Compare
mstoykov
force-pushed
the
supportFileSchemeInOpen
branch
from
d3333e2 to
759ea7c
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What?
Fix
openand experimentalfs.opento work with file scheme pathsFixes #4512
Why?
This apparently has never been supported which is likely due to nothing really returning absolute paths.
After adding import.meta.resolve though this is changed. And there is really no reason why it shouldn't be supported.
grpc.Client#load was skipped as there some of this goes through grpc internal library and it seems it might be more involved. I am also less certain it is as required there. Although it will be nice to have it supported in all cases.
Checklist
make lint) and all checks pass.make tests) and all tests pass.Related PR(s)/Issue(s)