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

Annotations removal #35

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 16, 2024

Conversation

jotelha
Copy link
Member

@jotelha jotelha commented Dec 13, 2024

This PR addresses #34

@tjelvar-olsson
Copy link
Contributor

@jotelha does it just work out of the box with all the derived concrete implementations of storage brokers (disk, s3, etc)? It looks like it should, but just want to double check.

Copy link
Contributor

@tjelvar-olsson tjelvar-olsson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving based on the assumption that it works out of the box with all storage brokers derived from the abstract base class.

@jotelha
Copy link
Member Author

jotelha commented Dec 16, 2024

@jotelha does it just work out of the box with all the derived concrete implementations of storage brokers (disk, s3, etc)? It looks like it should, but just want to double check.

Yes, I have tested it for s3, smb, and disk storage broker, and they all work fine.

Eventually, it boils down to the respective storage broker implementing the delete_key method properly,

def delete_key(self, key):
"""Delete the file/object associated with the key."""
raise(NotImplementedError())

which they should already be doing, since this is used in tag removal as well.

@jotelha jotelha merged commit f7cdc18 into jic-dtool:master Dec 16, 2024
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants