You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Object key names are "machine readable" string concats.
Looks like they're: YYYYMMDD-<Something>-<UUID4 DCE 1.1, ISO/IEC 11578:1996>
I'd like to be able to control the object key name in S3 to:
Give it a path to upload the artifact to:
e.g. Palworld/YYYYMMDD-<Something>-<UUID4 DCE 1.1, ISO/IEC 11578:1996>
I assume may be Time related, unsure why it's just not part of the YYYMMDD as YYYYMMDDHHmmss or so.
Give the key a more legible name using dynamic variables:
e.g. YYYYMMDD-<InstanceName>-<UUID4>
e.g. <UnixEpoch>-<InstanceName>-<Hostname>
Maybe the UUID4 could be mandatory somewhere in the string to help fears of collisions.
Right now non-human readable names are dumped into S3 and this forces us to use a bucket per instance. This is rather annoying as multiple S3 providers require explicit bucket creation. Some create it automatically like OVH, but it is rare (and I'd say somewhat of a bad pattern on OVH's side).
I confirm:
that I have searched for an existing feature request matching the description.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Feature Request
Feature Information:
Object key names are "machine readable" string concats.
Looks like they're:
YYYYMMDD-<Something>-<UUID4 DCE 1.1, ISO/IEC 11578:1996>
I'd like to be able to control the object key name in S3 to:
Give it a path to upload the artifact to:
e.g.
Palworld/YYYYMMDD-<Something>-<UUID4 DCE 1.1, ISO/IEC 11578:1996>
I assume may be Time related, unsure why it's just not part of the YYYMMDD as YYYYMMDDHHmmss or so.
Give the key a more legible name using dynamic variables:
e.g.
YYYYMMDD-<InstanceName>-<UUID4>
e.g.
<UnixEpoch>-<InstanceName>-<Hostname>
Maybe the UUID4 could be mandatory somewhere in the string to help fears of collisions.
Right now non-human readable names are dumped into S3 and this forces us to use a bucket per instance. This is rather annoying as multiple S3 providers require explicit bucket creation. Some create it automatically like OVH, but it is rare (and I'd say somewhat of a bad pattern on OVH's side).
I confirm:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: