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

IPIP-288: TAR Gateway Response Format #288

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022
Merged

IPIP-288: TAR Gateway Response Format #288

merged 29 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022

Conversation

hacdias
Copy link
Member

@hacdias hacdias commented Jun 10, 2022

See ipfs/kubo#9029.

Test failures: see #317 (comment).

@hacdias hacdias requested a review from lidel as a code owner June 10, 2022 12:27
@hacdias hacdias changed the title feat: initial HTTP gateway specs Add TAR Gateway Format Jun 10, 2022
@hacdias hacdias changed the title Add TAR Gateway Format Add TAR Gateway Response Format Jun 10, 2022
Copy link
Member

@lidel lidel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hacdias looks good!

Got small ask: we are adopting light RFC process (#286), and this is a very nice, small improvement we could use to test the process.

Do you mind copying RFC/0000-template.md from #289 and adding it to this PR?

It can be literally one sentence per each section – we just want to start explaining value to the user when we make changes like this one. Here, the benefit to the user is clear, they can download the entire directory. Alternatives and Security could include concerns around .gz variant, as noted in ipfs/kubo#9034

@lidel lidel changed the title Add TAR Gateway Response Format RFC: TAR Gateway Response Format Jun 14, 2022
@lidel lidel mentioned this pull request Jun 14, 2022
18 tasks
@hacdias hacdias requested a review from lidel June 16, 2022 11:26
@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Jun 16, 2022

@lidel done 😄

Copy link
Member

@lidel lidel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you @hacdias!

Will get back to this when I have more time, but quick feedback for now:

TAR will be under similar special-case as CAR (weak Etag, no guarantee of byte-for-byte reproducibility), so need to add it to sections about cache control headers:

RFC/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
RFC/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
http-gateways/PATH_GATEWAY.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lidel lidel changed the title RFC: TAR Gateway Response Format IPIP: TAR Gateway Response Format Jun 24, 2022
@hacdias hacdias force-pushed the feat/gateway-tar branch 2 times, most recently from 8af8309 to 8023280 Compare June 30, 2022 10:55
@hacdias hacdias requested a review from lidel June 30, 2022 12:18
@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Jun 30, 2022

@lidel made the updates you asked for. Let me know if there's anything that should be re-written or added.

Base automatically changed from feat/gateway-specs to main July 1, 2022 21:55
@lidel
Copy link
Member

lidel commented Jul 11, 2022

@hacdias mind resolving conflicts / rebasing on top of main? I'll be going over IPIPs next week 🙏

@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Jul 15, 2022

@lidel done!

Copy link
Member

@SgtPooki SgtPooki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

minor nits after reading through

IPIP/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
IPIP/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
IPIP/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
IPIP/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
IPIP/0000-gateway-tar-response-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
http-gateways/PATH_GATEWAY.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Marcin Rataj <lidel@lidel.org>
@hacdias

This comment was marked as outdated.

@hacdias hacdias requested a review from lidel October 12, 2022 11:04
@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Oct 12, 2022

@lidel added remaining fixtures. Cleaned up the copy.

Copy link
Member

@lidel lidel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We've discussed this during IPFS Implementers Sync today and ratified this.

Keeping this open in case we want to make any last-moment clarifications based on ipfs/kubo#9029 (will merge this spec after we land working code).

@lidel lidel changed the title IPIP: TAR Gateway Response Format IPIP-288: TAR Gateway Response Format Oct 26, 2022
lidel pushed a commit to ipfs/go-ipfs-files that referenced this pull request Nov 9, 2022
lidel added a commit to ipfs/kubo that referenced this pull request Nov 9, 2022
Implementation of IPIP-288 (ipfs/specs#288)

Co-authored-by: Marcin Rataj <lidel@lidel.org>
@lidel
Copy link
Member

lidel commented Nov 9, 2022

Merging.

If anyone is interested in trying it out, a working Implementation from ipfs/kubo#9029 will ship in Kubo 0.17-rc1.

@lidel lidel merged commit 4cfabca into main Nov 9, 2022
@lidel lidel deleted the feat/gateway-tar branch November 9, 2022 19:15
hacdias added a commit to ipfs/boxo that referenced this pull request Jan 11, 2023
See "Security" section of IPIP-288 (ipfs/specs#288)

This commit was moved from ipfs/go-ipfs-files@e8cf9a3
hacdias added a commit to ipfs/boxo that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2023
Implementation of IPIP-288 (ipfs/specs#288)

Co-authored-by: Marcin Rataj <lidel@lidel.org>

This commit was moved from ipfs/kubo@a210abd
hannahhoward pushed a commit to filecoin-project/kubo-api-client that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2023
Implementation of IPIP-288 (ipfs/specs#288)

Co-authored-by: Marcin Rataj <lidel@lidel.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Ratified
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants