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

Handle restrict_scope correctly #11

Open
TopperDEL opened this issue Jan 16, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Handle restrict_scope correctly #11

TopperDEL opened this issue Jan 16, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed SWIG Issues that should be handled by adjusting the SWIG-interface-files.

Comments

@TopperDEL
Copy link
Owner

Expected Behavior

The SWIG-Proxy should handle the restrict_scope-function correctly.

Actual Behavior

I could not wrap EncryptionRestrictions correctly with SWIG, so I had to add the file "restrict_scope_helper.go" to overcome this issue.

Help wanted

I did not get SWIG to handle this correctly, but I'm pretty sure that it is possible. Any help is greatly appreciated!

@TopperDEL TopperDEL added help wanted Extra attention is needed SWIG Issues that should be handled by adjusting the SWIG-interface-files. labels Jan 16, 2020
@TopperDEL
Copy link
Owner Author

This one is still not optimal. With Uplink-c the names changed to "access_share" instead of "restrict_scope" - but the Problem is the same.

I did not manage to get SWIG to generate a good Proxy for this signature:
https://github.com/storj/uplink-c/blob/8a57b27665f7e5f24feeb3c30d157ff6b7e45ae3/access.go#L98

The prefixes-argument gets converted to one single SharePrefix, but is meant as a pointer to the first element of an Array.

Help appreciated!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed SWIG Issues that should be handled by adjusting the SWIG-interface-files.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant