RFC-5495: List With Deleted #5495
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Xuanwo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Xuanwo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Xuanwo <[email protected]>
| Please note that `deleted` here means "including deleted files" rather than "only deleted files." Therefore, `list_with(path).deleted(true)` will list both current files and deleted ones. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then with_deleted or include_deleted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Align with our existsing versions(true) API, we will have:
list_with(path).deleted(true).versions(true)I think it's straightforward and clear enough.
| | `None` | `false` | **The metadata's associated file is not deleted, but its version status is either unknown or it is not the latest version.** This likely indicates that versioning is not enabled for this file, or versioning information is unavailable. | | ||
| | `None` | `true` | **The metadata's associated file is deleted, but its version status is either unknown or it is not the latest version.** This typically means the file was deleted without versioning enabled, or its versioning information is unavailable. This may represent an actual data deletion operation rather than an S3 delete marker. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems deleted only relevant if versioning are enabled? If so, then these two variants seems not applicible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are instances where we cannot determine if the metadata is current even when versioning has been enabled. For example, when calling HeadObject with a version ID to fetch the metadata of a path, we cannot tell whether it is current or not, though we do know whether it has been deleted. In such cases, its versioning information is unavailable (the None here).
|
LGTM. |
Hi, please give an |
Which issue does this PR close?
Part of #5475
Rationale for this change
Add a new RFC for list with deleted.
What changes are included in this PR?
A new RFC
Are there any user-facing changes?
None.