feat(publisher-gcs): add Google Cloud Storage publisher#2100
Conversation
|
Hi @malept could you please review this PR. |
|
@malept 😢 |
|
Hi @malept when my PR may be accepted? |
|
@erickzhao What about Google Cloud Storage publisher? I really need it for my workflow |
|
@MarshallOfSound @erickzhao @BlackHole1 I've decided to rebase on top of current main and squash to single commit. |
|
Should I rebase PR again? |
| keyFilename?: string; | ||
| /** | ||
| * The Google Cloud project ID. | ||
| * | ||
| * Defaults to the value in the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT` environment variable. | ||
| * */ | ||
| projectId?: string; | ||
| /** | ||
| * The email for your Google service account, *required* when using a PEM/PKCS #12-formatted | ||
| * file in the [[keyFilename]] option. | ||
| * | ||
| * Defaults to the value in the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_CLIENT_EMAIL` environment variable. | ||
| */ | ||
| clientEmail?: string; | ||
| /** | ||
| * The private key for your Google service account. | ||
| * | ||
| * Defaults to the value in the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_PRIVATE_KEY` environment variable. | ||
| */ | ||
| privateKey?: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
comment: For these auth-related options, can we put them in a separate auth object?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the previous comment in this chain is still a valid concern. It might be cleaner to put all auth-related private key config options under an auth property.
|
@erickzhao I was able to rebase PR on top of current main by fighting the dependency hell... I make GCS publisher looks like S3 publisher and ported changes from it. Could you please help me to ship GCS publisher before main have many new changes? |
|
Useful feature for me also. |
|
@erickzhao could I ask for a review of this PR? |
|
@erickzhao I've rebase PR on top of current changes. Could you please tell me what should I do to have this PR merged? |
|
I'm using this publisher for a years, published by my package name. Could we make this PR merged? |
|
@MarshallOfSound @erickzhao I need this publisher in the application. What can I do to get the PR accepted? |
|
Hi @mahnunchik . I saw @erickzhao commented on some issues. If they have been resolved, you can click the “Resolve conversation” button. If you have any questions regarding the issues, you can comment below. This will help other maintainers with the code review. |
|
@BlackHole1 @erickzhao All open conversations was commented by me. GCS publisher is based on S3 publisher, I think both should be close as possible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left two minor comments. Also, our policy is generally to only let maintainers commit lockfile changes. Can you also revert yarn.lock here @mahnunchik?
| keyFilename?: string; | ||
| /** | ||
| * The Google Cloud project ID. | ||
| * | ||
| * Defaults to the value in the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT` environment variable. | ||
| * */ | ||
| projectId?: string; | ||
| /** | ||
| * The email for your Google service account, *required* when using a PEM/PKCS #12-formatted | ||
| * file in the [[keyFilename]] option. | ||
| * | ||
| * Defaults to the value in the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_CLIENT_EMAIL` environment variable. | ||
| */ | ||
| clientEmail?: string; | ||
| /** | ||
| * The private key for your Google service account. | ||
| * | ||
| * Defaults to the value in the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_PRIVATE_KEY` environment variable. | ||
| */ | ||
| privateKey?: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the previous comment in this chain is still a valid concern. It might be cleaner to put all auth-related private key config options under an auth property.
|
Here are the tweaks I propose: all the auth-related This way we aren't limiting ourselves to a subset of the credential options available via the |
Gcs auth fixes
|
@erickzhao Thank you for your help! Implementation has become much simpler and clearer. Should I close conversations above? I think everything is fixed now. |
This should be a transient dep via `@google-cloud/storage`
|
I think everything is fixed! We're planning on releasing a new Forge version within the next week, so hopefully this can make its way in. |

Continue of #1752