-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
V2.0.1 branch #66
V2.0.1 branch #66
Conversation
dbc5be9
to
05fd2d9
Compare
This changeset adds an optional cloud group to admin-schema.json. If cloud.enabled is set to true, then the cloud.host properties must also be provided.
05fd2d9
to
85f1bdc
Compare
@@ -0,0 +1,1421 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", | |||
"$id": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Infectious-Disease-Modeling-Hubs/schemas/main/v2.0.1/tasks-schema.json", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tasks-schema.json
is a copy/paste from v2.0.0
: the only change is this line
"GitHub" | ||
] | ||
}, | ||
"repository_url": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we know that all hubs are using GitHub, I don't think it's worth making a breaking change here, but if we ever hit v3.0, it might be helpful to split up the repository_url
into its atomic components of org name and repo name.
Reason: cloud-enabled hubs need the org name and repo name as separate strings for setting up AWS permissions. As we ramp up, it's easy enough to parse because we know how GitHub URLs are formatted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like a reasonable suggestion. maybe worth filing as an issue for future reference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me. The example is helpful to see what this would look like in action.
Looks good to me too! The only question I had was whether it might be worth naming the option for |
Looks good to me too! |
DOH already done! Was looking in the wrong place!! |
@elray1 Good question re: being explicit about the name of the cloud storage service. AFAIK, most cloud providers only have one option for cloud object storage (e.g., AWS has S3, Azure has blob). But I agree with your point...why not be as clear as possible while also hedging our bets for the Glorious Future? Pushed another commit....lemme know what you think! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good :)
Merging this so we can create a "cloud-enabled" version of the admin schema. Still working on the corresponding |
Resolves #65
This changeset adds an optional cloud group to admin-schema.json.
If cloud.enabled is set to true, then the cloud.host properties must also be provided.
I versioned this as v2.0.1 because it's a non-breaking change, but will add a follow-up question in the comments about how we're capturing
repository_url