feat: add general access enum to consts #507
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
github-actions
bot
added
the
t-platform
B4nan
approved these changes
Apr 7, 2025
fnesveda
approved these changes
Apr 7, 2025
danpoletaev
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2025
|
@tobice I've merged the latest changes from master which are updating eslint config, there is one small issue to be fixed here. |
tobice
added a commit
to apify/apify-shared-python
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2025
fnesveda
added
the
validated
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We plan to allow users to configure through API & clients how their storages and runs can be accessed — whether just the ID / name is sufficient to access the storage. Full context in https://github.com/apify/apify-core/issues/19012.
This PR adds appropriate enums that will be used both externally (in clients & API), and internally (where it will replace the existing enum).
Note that there are separate enums for runs and storages as only storages support access by name. So far we have been using a shared enum for both, but it's cleaner to have them separated — in run related logic & documentation we won't have to account (much) for the unsupported value.