container: Add ListStream method #70
1 changed files with 53 additions and 1 deletions
|
@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ service ContainerService {
|
|||
// access to container is denied.
|
||||
rpc Get(GetRequest) returns (GetResponse);
|
||||
|
||||
// Returns all owner's containers from 'Container` smart contract' storage.
|
||||
// Returns all owner's containers from `Container` smart contract storage.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Statuses:
|
||||
// - **OK** (0, SECTION_SUCCESS): \
|
||||
|
@ -61,6 +61,17 @@ service ContainerService {
|
|||
// - **CONTAINER_ACCESS_DENIED** (3074, SECTION_CONTAINER): \
|
||||
// container list access denied.
|
||||
rpc List(ListRequest) returns (ListResponse);
|
||||
|
||||
// Returns all owner's containers from `Container` smart contract storage
|
||||
|
||||
// via stream.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Statuses:
|
||||
// - **OK** (0, SECTION_SUCCESS): \
|
||||
// container list has been successfully read;
|
||||
// - Common failures (SECTION_FAILURE_COMMON);
|
||||
// - **CONTAINER_ACCESS_DENIED** (3074, SECTION_CONTAINER): \
|
||||
// container list access denied.
|
||||
rpc ListStream(ListStreamRequest) returns (stream ListStreamResponse);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// New FrostFS Container creation request
|
||||
|
@ -245,3 +256,44 @@ message ListResponse {
|
|||
// transmission.
|
||||
neo.fs.v2.session.ResponseVerificationHeader verify_header = 3;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// List containers stream
|
||||
message ListStreamRequest {
|
||||
// List containers stream request body.
|
||||
message Body {
|
||||
// Identifier of the container owner.
|
||||
fyrchik
commented
There is no dot at the end, and I am now wondering why we do not check this. There is no dot at the end, and I am now wondering why we do not check this.
|
||||
neo.fs.v2.refs.OwnerID owner_id = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
// Body of list containers stream request message.
|
||||
Body body = 1;
|
||||
|
||||
// Carries request meta information. Header data is used only to regulate
|
||||
// message transport and does not affect request execution.
|
||||
neo.fs.v2.session.RequestMetaHeader meta_header = 2;
|
||||
|
||||
// Carries request verification information. This header is used to
|
||||
// authenticate the nodes of the message route and check the correctness of
|
||||
// transmission.
|
||||
neo.fs.v2.session.RequestVerificationHeader verify_header = 3;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// List containers stream
|
||||
message ListStreamResponse {
|
||||
// List containers stream response body.
|
||||
message Body {
|
||||
// List of `ContainerID`s belonging to the requested `OwnerID`
|
||||
repeated refs.ContainerID container_ids = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Body of list containers stream response message.
|
||||
Body body = 1;
|
||||
|
||||
// Carries response meta information. Header data is used only to regulate
|
||||
// message transport and does not affect request execution.
|
||||
neo.fs.v2.session.ResponseMetaHeader meta_header = 2;
|
||||
|
||||
// Carries response verification information. This header is used to
|
||||
// authenticate the nodes of the message route and check the correctness of
|
||||
// transmission.
|
||||
neo.fs.v2.session.ResponseVerificationHeader verify_header = 3;
|
||||
aarifullin marked this conversation as resolved
aarifullin
commented
#69 had been merged last week. Since, we don't use I'd like to know the steps for an implementation of this method in [#69](https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-api/pulls/69) had been merged last week. Since, we don't use `neo.fs.v2` namespace - it does no longer exist. You'll probably encounter difficulties trying regenerate protobufs within `frostfs-sdk-go/api`.
I'd like to know the steps for an implementation of this method in `frostfs-node`. Should it be held for a while until all nodes bump `frostfs-sdk-go` version (in other words, all services will run handlers in the new namespace)?
aarifullin
commented
Sorry, this comment is irrelevant as those PR was merged into non-master branch Sorry, this comment is irrelevant as those PR was merged into non-master branch
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue
Fixed