remove S3 persistence workaround #11809
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
LocalStack Community integration with Pro 2 files 2 suites 56m 55s ⏱️ Results for commit 10e46e0. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
09b802d to
60d3b37
Compare
e629b30 to
9b8d0e1
Compare
5fe34da to
f12f6a3
Compare
cloutierMat
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2024
…se_for_delete_marker parameter
f12f6a3 to
10e46e0
Compare
dfangl
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2024
dominikschubert
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2024
dominikschubert
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
When implementing new features in S3 since
3.0.0, we've taken extra care to not break persistence by usinggetattraround store attributes and have additional conditionals in place.As we're approaching a major release, I've collected the TODO related to this and removed the
getattrblocks to simplify the logic. If people loaded earlier state and then saved it again after using it with a version with those calls, the state should not be broken anyway.Changes
getattraround store operations, as v4 is probably going to break persistence in multiple ways with all the provider changes.