Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 12, 2024. It is now read-only.

feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs #3785

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Aug 9, 2021

Conversation

achingbrain
Copy link
Member

@achingbrain achingbrain commented Aug 4, 2021

ipfs get on the cli writes files/folders to disk, also tarballs and gzipped tarballs. Also gzipped individual files.

In the API it's very similar to ipfs.ls. Make it more like the cli so there's a clear reason to use one or the other.

Also adds types to interface-ipfs-core and the ipfs-core tests to better catch broken types in ipfs-core-types.

`ipfs get` on the cli writes files/folders to disk, also tarballs
and gzipped tarballs. Also gzipped individual files.

In the API it's very similar to `ipfs.ls`.  Make it more like the
cli so there's a clear reason to use one or the other.

Also adds types to `interface-ipfs-core` to better catch broken
types in `ipfs-core-types`.
@achingbrain
Copy link
Member Author

achingbrain commented Aug 4, 2021

@achingbrain achingbrain changed the title feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs and add types to interface-ipfs-core Aug 4, 2021
@achingbrain achingbrain changed the title feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs and add types to interface-ipfs-core feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs and add types to interface-ipfs-core tests Aug 4, 2021
@achingbrain achingbrain changed the title feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs and add types to interface-ipfs-core tests feat: make ipfs.get output tarballs Aug 9, 2021
@achingbrain achingbrain merged commit 1ad6001 into master Aug 9, 2021
@achingbrain achingbrain deleted the fix/interface-core-tests-and-ipfs-get branch August 9, 2021 13:09
achingbrain added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2021
Not sure how the build for #3785 passed without this, but it did?
@achingbrain achingbrain mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2021
achingbrain added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2021
Not sure how the build for #3785 passed without this, but it did?
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant