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

C.41 compliance: Azure factory constructor. #5392

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 3, 2025
Merged

C.41 compliance: Azure factory constructor. #5392

merged 6 commits into from
Jan 3, 2025

Conversation

bekadavis9
Copy link
Contributor

Remove Azure::init in favor of a C.41-compliant factory constructor. The Azure::azure_params_ member variable is no longer optional and is fully-initialized at construction time.

[sc-60071]


TYPE: IMPROVEMENT
DESC: C.41 constructor: Azure.

Copy link
Member

@teo-tsirpanis teo-tsirpanis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(some of the comments apply to the PRs for GCS and HDFS, I will review them more thorougly after reviewing this PR finishes)

I am not a fan of the ***_within_VFS mechanism and cannot understand why it was introduced. My attempts to find more context in source code documentation, the review comments of #4360 or the Shortcut story were unfruitful. We can't easily remove it for S3 because test code has a dependency on it, but we shouldn't do the same for the other VFSes.

Comment on lines +86 to +87
* @note The member variables' default declarations have not yet been moved
* from the Config declaration into this struct.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

After we do that it might be a good idea to restore the default constructor.

@bekadavis9
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note that Azure::read and AzureClientSingleton::upload_block cannot yet be un-Status-edited. This work will be done later, when all of VFS receives the same treatment.

Copy link
Member

@teo-tsirpanis teo-tsirpanis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great work with removing Status, thanks!

I left some comments and still believe that Azure_within_VFS should be removed before I approve.

@bekadavis9
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc: @teo-tsirpanis

After discussion with @ihnorton offline, we've decided to stick with the current design. This entails use of Backend_within_VFS and directly passing a Config into the backends' constructors. A larger refactor can be considered once a full design for VFS rework is fleshed out.

@teo-tsirpanis
Copy link
Member

This entails use of Backend_within_VFS and directly passing a Config into the backends' constructors.

We could do these as part of this larger refactor, where there will be more context for understanding their necessity, but I don't mind either way.

@teo-tsirpanis
Copy link
Member

CI fails because the VFS methods now throw instead of returning a failed status when used on Azure.

@bekadavis9 bekadavis9 force-pushed the rd/C41-azure branch 2 times, most recently from a726df8 to 4e5f420 Compare December 31, 2024 19:53
@bekadavis9 bekadavis9 merged commit 9013c66 into main Jan 3, 2025
63 checks passed
@bekadavis9 bekadavis9 deleted the rd/C41-azure branch January 3, 2025 18:38
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