Skip to content

Conversation

@cthulhu-rider
Copy link
Contributor

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 19, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.87879% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 59.19%. Comparing base (4b8bd69) to head (666fbf8).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
client/object_get.go 87.87% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #719      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   59.17%   59.19%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         166      166              
  Lines       20950    20970      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits        12397    12413      +16     
- Misses       8287     8290       +3     
- Partials      266      267       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@roman-khimov roman-khimov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about checksums? Can we check them and have an option to disable these checks at the client level?

From nspcc-dev/neofs-api@7dd2d1d.
Brought doc changes only.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
They are deprecated since nspcc-dev/neofs-api#334.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
ID of the object is essentially a checksum of its header. To prevent
malicious data substitution or bugs, received headers should be verified
against requested IDs. This makes `Client.ObjectHead` method to do it.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
Some customers may want to self-check or not check.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider marked this pull request as ready for review June 20, 2025 12:46
@roman-khimov roman-khimov merged commit a9cfab6 into master Jun 23, 2025
10 checks passed
@roman-khimov roman-khimov deleted the get-unsigned branch June 23, 2025 12:45
cthulhu-rider added a commit to nspcc-dev/neofs-node that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2025
Follow nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go#719 in request
forwarding case.

Refs #3396.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
cthulhu-rider added a commit to nspcc-dev/neofs-node that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2025
Continues b283606. Follow
nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go#719 in request forwarding
case.

Refs #3396.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
cthulhu-rider added a commit to nspcc-dev/neofs-node that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Continues ad60ee5. Follow
nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go#719 in request forwarding
case.

Refs #3396.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
cthulhu-rider added a commit to nspcc-dev/neofs-node that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2025
Continues f0ce38e. Follow
nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go#719 in request proxy case.

Refs #3396.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
cthulhu-rider added a commit to nspcc-dev/neofs-node that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2025
Continues 041cdce. Follow
nspcc-dev/neofs-sdk-go#719 in request proxy case.

Refs #3396.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <[email protected]>
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.

4 participants