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

fix: LSDV-5554: Support prefix level access configs for S3 config validation #4759

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2023

Conversation

jombooth
Copy link
Contributor

@jombooth jombooth commented Sep 8, 2023

…idation

PR fulfills these requirements

  • Commit message(s) and PR title follows the format [fix|feat|ci|chore|doc]: TICKET-ID: Short description of change made ex. fix: DEV-XXXX: Removed inconsistent code usage causing intermittent errors
  • Tests for the changes have been added/updated (for bug fixes/features)
  • Docs have been added/updated (for bug fixes/features)
  • Best efforts were made to ensure docs/code are concise and coherent (checked for spelling/grammatical errors, commented out code, debug logs etc.)
  • Self-reviewed and ran all changes on a local instance (for bug fixes/features)

Change has impacts in these area(s)

(check all that apply)

  • Product design
  • Backend (Database)
  • Backend (API)
  • Frontend

Describe the reason for change

(link to issue, supportive screenshots etc.)

Currently we can't connect target storage if the user only has prefix-level access to the target bucket. This PR addresses the issue quickly to unblock a client, but in future we should validate write access rather than list access for the target storage cases.

Kudos to @shuyangsun for suggesting this fix + providing detailed repro instructions: #4605 (comment)

What does this fix?

(if this is a bug fix)

What is the new behavior?

(if this is a breaking or feature change)

What is the current behavior?

(if this is a breaking or feature change)

What libraries were added/updated?

(list all with version changes)

Does this change affect performance?

(if so describe the impacts positive or negative)

Does this change affect security?

(if so describe the impacts positive or negative)

What alternative approaches were there?

(briefly list any if applicable)

What feature flags were used to cover this change?

(briefly list any if applicable)

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

(check only one)

  • Yes, and covered entirely by feature flag(s)
  • Yes, and covered partially by feature flag(s)
  • No
  • Not sure (briefly explain the situation below)

What level of testing was included in the change?

(check all that apply)

  • e2e
  • integration
  • unit

Which logical domain(s) does this change affect?

(for bug fixes/features, be as precise as possible. ex. Authentication, Annotation History, Review Stream etc.)

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 8, 2023

Deploy Preview for label-studio-docs-new-theme canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit c0e64bb
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/label-studio-docs-new-theme/deploys/64fb8374b45c7900081148f0

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 8, 2023

Deploy Preview for heartex-docs canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit c0e64bb
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/heartex-docs/deploys/64fb837455739b0008ad2be9

@github-actions github-actions bot added the fix label Sep 8, 2023
@jombooth jombooth marked this pull request as ready for review September 8, 2023 20:48
@farioas farioas merged commit f992b71 into develop Sep 8, 2023
52 of 72 checks passed
shayantabatabaee pushed a commit to shayantabatabaee/label-studio that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants