Skip to content

Conversation

@jonashaag
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #.

Rationale for this change

Similar to #467, also allow server_side_encryption instead of aws_server_side_encryption and some other aws_ prefixed settings.

What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

Copy link
Member

@kylebarron kylebarron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is good to align with Google and Azure config keys, where every key supports both the vendor prefix like aws_bucket as well as the bare version bucket

match s {
"google_service_account"
| "service_account"
| "google_service_account_path"
| "service_account_path" => Ok(Self::ServiceAccount),
"google_service_account_key" | "service_account_key" => Ok(Self::ServiceAccountKey),
"google_bucket" | "google_bucket_name" | "bucket" | "bucket_name" => Ok(Self::Bucket),
"google_application_credentials" | "application_credentials" => {
Ok(Self::ApplicationCredentials)
}
"google_skip_signature" | "skip_signature" => Ok(Self::SkipSignature),

fn from_str(s: &str) -> Result<Self, Self::Err> {
match s {
"azure_storage_account_key"
| "azure_storage_access_key"
| "azure_storage_master_key"
| "master_key"
| "account_key"
| "access_key" => Ok(Self::AccessKey),
"azure_storage_account_name" | "account_name" => Ok(Self::AccountName),
"azure_storage_client_id" | "azure_client_id" | "client_id" => Ok(Self::ClientId),
"azure_storage_client_secret" | "azure_client_secret" | "client_secret" => {
Ok(Self::ClientSecret)
}
"azure_storage_tenant_id"
| "azure_storage_authority_id"
| "azure_tenant_id"
| "azure_authority_id"
| "tenant_id"
| "authority_id" => Ok(Self::AuthorityId),
"azure_storage_authority_host" | "azure_authority_host" | "authority_host" => {
Ok(Self::AuthorityHost)
}
"azure_storage_sas_key" | "azure_storage_sas_token" | "sas_key" | "sas_token" => {
Ok(Self::SasKey)
}
"azure_storage_token" | "bearer_token" | "token" => Ok(Self::Token),
"azure_storage_use_emulator" | "use_emulator" => Ok(Self::UseEmulator),
"azure_storage_endpoint" | "azure_endpoint" | "endpoint" => Ok(Self::Endpoint),
"azure_msi_endpoint"
| "azure_identity_endpoint"
| "identity_endpoint"
| "msi_endpoint" => Ok(Self::MsiEndpoint),
"azure_object_id" | "object_id" => Ok(Self::ObjectId),
"azure_msi_resource_id" | "msi_resource_id" => Ok(Self::MsiResourceId),
"azure_federated_token_file" | "federated_token_file" => Ok(Self::FederatedTokenFile),
"azure_use_fabric_endpoint" | "use_fabric_endpoint" => Ok(Self::UseFabricEndpoint),
"azure_use_azure_cli" | "use_azure_cli" => Ok(Self::UseAzureCli),
"azure_skip_signature" | "skip_signature" => Ok(Self::SkipSignature),
"azure_container_name" | "container_name" => Ok(Self::ContainerName),
"azure_disable_tagging" | "disable_tagging" => Ok(Self::DisableTagging),
"azure_fabric_token_service_url" | "fabric_token_service_url" => {
Ok(Self::FabricTokenServiceUrl)
}
"azure_fabric_workload_host" | "fabric_workload_host" => Ok(Self::FabricWorkloadHost),
"azure_fabric_session_token" | "fabric_session_token" => Ok(Self::FabricSessionToken),
"azure_fabric_cluster_identifier" | "fabric_cluster_identifier" => {
Ok(Self::FabricClusterIdentifier)
}
// Backwards compatibility
"azure_allow_http" => Ok(Self::Client(ClientConfigKey::AllowHttp)),

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Oct 23, 2025

I restarted the failed MSRV check (some sort of network error)

Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense to me -- I wonder if they need tests 🤔

Thank you @jonashaag and @kylebarron

@kylebarron
Copy link
Member

I don't think there are existing tests for the string config parsing, but maybe I missed them.

I'm not sure what kind of test would make sense here, because this feels like a situation where the test just copies 1:1 the implementation of the enum creation

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Oct 23, 2025

Yeah, so sounds good to merge it. Thanks

@kylebarron
Copy link
Member

CI should pass after #519

@alamb alamb merged commit fc23712 into apache:main Oct 27, 2025
8 checks passed
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Oct 27, 2025

Thanks again @jonashaag and @kylebarron

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants