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

Abstract customdataRetriever in historian, pass simplified customData to gitrest filesystem #23354

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zhajie
Copy link
Contributor

@zhajie zhajie commented Dec 18, 2024

Description

This PR is to abstract customdataRetriever in historian and passing simplifiedCustomData to gitrest.

Background:
Blob container per doc is a storage optimization for FRS Durable Container. In container per doc mode, the document vs azure blob container is 1:1 mapping. The blob container was created before the initial summary uploaded.

To support a cmk-related case in containerPerDoc mode, there is specific tenant-level info needs to be read from tenantDB, and passed to storage layer in document creation flow. In oss, just wrap this info as a generic message, and pass it all the way into filesystemFactory parameters without editing, in this way most of implementation details specific to this case can be contained in FRS.

Main Changes:

In historian, abstract an interface ISimplifiedCustomDataRetriever.get() to convert customData to a simple string (customized implementation in FRS), then pass to gitrest via http header.
In gitrest, get SimplifiedCustomData from header and add as part of FileSystemManagerFactory parameter.

@github-actions github-actions bot added area: server Server related issues (routerlicious) base: main PRs targeted against main branch labels Dec 18, 2024
@zhajie zhajie changed the title abstract customdataRetriever in historian Abstract customdataRetriever in historian, pass simplified customData to gitrest filesystem Dec 19, 2024
@zhajie zhajie marked this pull request as ready for review December 19, 2024 19:51

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 21 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Files not reviewed (15)
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/summaries.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/app.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/repository/commits.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/git/trees.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/repository/headers.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/repository/contents.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/git/blobs.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/runner.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/git/tags.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/runnerFactory.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/git/refs.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/git/commits.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/routes/utils.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/historian/packages/historian-base/src/services/index.ts: Evaluated as low risk
  • server/gitrest/packages/gitrest-base/src/utils/helpers.ts: Evaluated as low risk
Copy link
Contributor

@znewton znewton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. A couple naming and documentation notes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: server Server related issues (routerlicious) base: main PRs targeted against main branch
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants