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

Cause Fog::File.read to return its contents after upload #1517

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 9, 2014

Conversation

stormsilver
Copy link
Contributor

This solves the case where uploading a file to Fog and then reading its body
immediately afterward results in a deleted, closed tempfile rather
than the actual contents of the upload. #1338

This solves the case where uploading a file to Fog and then reading its body
immediately afterward results in a deleted, closed tempfile rather
than the actual contents of the upload. carrierwaveuploader#1338
@stormsilver stormsilver changed the title Cause Fog::File.read returns its contents after upload Cause Fog::File.read to return its contents after upload Dec 8, 2014
@rusllonrails
Copy link

Looks good for me 👍

bensie added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 9, 2014
Cause Fog::File.read to return its contents after upload
@bensie bensie merged commit 0fb97f0 into carrierwaveuploader:master Dec 9, 2014
@dgilperez
Copy link

Thanks for this! 👍

@stormsilver stormsilver deleted the issues/1338 branch July 16, 2016 22:25
DarkArc added a commit to topechelon/carrierwave that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2018
This fixes an issue with file upload streaming. Previously passing the file was added in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, and was subsequently broken by PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

This corrects the approach implemented in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, without introducing the problem in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

New behavior:

  In the case of a fog based retrieval request, the file will be fetched as it was previously. The file read method will then see that file.body is set to a non-nil value, and return the file content from the file object.

  In the case of a fog based storage request, the file will be uploaded either as full text, or in batches as it was in PR carrierwaveuploader#468. However, to address the issue observed in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517 we set the body to nil, and then store a reference to the source file (the CarrierWave::SanitizedFile/read compatible object passed). This in turn results in the read method seeing no body on the file object, and consulting the source file for the file contents.

The approach to storage requests is taken over two other approaches:

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#1:

    We could read the file into memory as carrierwave currently does, however, this results in large files often exhausting the heap space of the process, thus making carrierwave a poor choice for large file uploads.

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#2:

    We could not store a reference to the original source file, however, this would result in an additional retrieval requests carrierwave does not currently make, potentially costing in bandwidth for current users.
DarkArc added a commit to topechelon/carrierwave that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2018
This fixes an issue with file upload streaming. Previously passing the file was added in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, and was subsequently broken by PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

This corrects the approach implemented in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, without introducing the problem in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

New behavior:

  In the case of a fog based retrieval request, the file will be fetched as it was previously. The file read method will then see that file.body is set to a non-nil value, and return the file content from the file object.

  In the case of a fog based storage request, the file will be uploaded either as full text, or in batches as it was in PR carrierwaveuploader#468. However, to address the issue observed in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517 we set the body to nil, and then store a reference to the source file (the CarrierWave::SanitizedFile/read compatible object passed). This in turn results in the read method seeing no body on the file object, and consulting the source file for the file contents.

The approach to storage requests is taken over two other approaches:

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#1:

    We could read the file into memory as carrierwave currently does, however, this results in large files often exhausting the heap space of the process, thus making carrierwave a poor choice for large file uploads.

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#2:

    We could not store a reference to the original source file, however, this would result in an additional retrieval requests carrierwave does not currently make, potentially costing in bandwidth for current users.
DarkArc added a commit to topechelon/carrierwave that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2018
This fixes an issue with file upload streaming. Previously passing the file was added in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, and was subsequently broken by PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

This corrects the approach implemented in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, without introducing the problem in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

New behavior:

  In the case of a fog based retrieval request, the file will be fetched as it was previously. The file read method will then see that file.body is set to a non-nil value, and return the file content from the file object.

  In the case of a fog based storage request, the file will be uploaded either as full text, or in batches as it was in PR carrierwaveuploader#468. However, to address the issue observed in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517 we set the body to nil, and then store a reference to the source file (the CarrierWave::SanitizedFile/read compatible object passed). This in turn results in the read method seeing no body on the file object, and consulting the source file for the file contents.

The approach to storage requests is taken over two other approaches:

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#1:

    We could read the file into memory as carrierwave currently does, however, this results in large files often exhausting the heap space of the process, thus making carrierwave a poor choice for large file uploads.

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#2:

    We could not store a reference to the original source file, however, this would result in an additional retrieval requests carrierwave does not currently make, potentially costing in bandwidth for current users.
DarkArc added a commit to topechelon/carrierwave that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2018
This fixes an issue with file upload streaming. Previously passing the file was added in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, and was subsequently broken by PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

This corrects the approach implemented in PR carrierwaveuploader#468, without introducing the problem in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517.

New behavior:

  In the case of a fog based retrieval request, the file will be fetched as it was previously. The file read method will then see that file.body is set to a non-nil value, and return the file content from the file object.

  In the case of a fog based storage request, the file will be uploaded either as full text, or in batches as it was in PR carrierwaveuploader#468. However, to address the issue observed in PR carrierwaveuploader#1517 we set the body to nil, and then store a reference to the source file (the CarrierWave::SanitizedFile/read compatible object passed). This in turn results in the read method seeing no body on the file object, and consulting the source file for the file contents.

The approach to storage requests is taken over two other approaches:

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#1:

    We could read the file into memory as carrierwave currently does, however, this results in large files often exhausting the heap space of the process, thus making carrierwave a poor choice for large file uploads.

  Approach carrierwaveuploader#2:

    We could not store a reference to the original source file, however, this would result in an additional retrieval requests carrierwave does not currently make, potentially costing in bandwidth for current users.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants