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

Add Content-Range capability to the File getObject adapter. #358

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2024

Conversation

yoohoomedia
Copy link
Contributor

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Added Content-Range capability to the File adapter allowing for video streaming.

What is the current behavior?

Storage module would not honour range requests when requesting video files from buckets files by clients using the public URL. Video players request video files with range values to improve loading performance. The File adapter would ignore these ranges and return the entire file, causing an excessive delay when attempting to play a large video file (ie: 1gb).

What is the new behavior?

File adapter checks for the existence of the Range header, then returns the appropriate chunk of the requested file. If the header is not present then it returns to the standard response containing the entire file.

@yoohoomedia
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm new to GitHub pull requests - I think I may have messed this request up.

@yoohoomedia yoohoomedia reopened this Sep 22, 2023
@yoohoomedia
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can someone please point me to documentation on how inter-repository forking/pull requests work or the process one should follow?
Thanks

@LautaroJayat
Copy link

@yoohoomedia
I think they expect something like the following:

  1. fork the repo
  2. create a new branch, in your case something like feat/adding-content-range-capability-to-file-get-object-adapter
  3. develop & commit in there
  4. push to your fork
  5. create a PR

When creating a PR you will have to choose if you want to make that PR against your fork's main branch, or the supabase/storage-api repo main branch.

Anyways, I dont think you messed up this PR.

If you are worring about the failing test, I'm seeing the same error in other PRs and it seems to be something about a missing ENV value set in the secrets of the ci pipeline.

@fenos do you have any insight on this failing job?

@fenos
Copy link
Contributor

fenos commented Jan 3, 2024

Hello @yoohoomedia @LautaroJayat i definitely missed this PR! Apologies for the late reply!
I will get it reviewed and merged in the next couple of days

@fenos fenos merged commit b595d94 into supabase:master Feb 5, 2024
1 check failed
@fenos
Copy link
Contributor

fenos commented Feb 5, 2024

Thanks a lot @yoohoomedia!

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 9, 2024

🎉 This PR is included in version 0.47.0 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants