sungwy commented on code in PR #18254:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18254#discussion_r4261905511
##########
open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml:
##########
@@ -5854,6 +5513,104 @@ components:
headers:
$ref: '#/components/schemas/MultiValuedMap'
+ RemoteSignBatchRequest:
+ description: >
+ A batch of requests to be signed remotely. `region`, `method`,
`provider` and
+ `properties` apply to every element of `requests`.
+ type: object
+ required:
+ - region
+ - method
+ - requests
+ properties:
+ region:
+ type: string
+ method:
+ type: string
+ enum: ["PUT", "GET", "HEAD", "POST", "DELETE", "PATCH", "OPTIONS"]
+ provider:
+ type: string
+ description: The storage provider for every element of the batch. If
this is not specified, the
+ provider is assumed to be `s3`, as in `RemoteSignRequest`.
+ properties:
+ type: object
+ additionalProperties:
+ type: string
+ requests:
+ type: array
+ minItems: 1
+ items:
+ $ref: '#/components/schemas/RemoteSignBatchElement'
+
+ RemoteSignBatchElement:
+ description: The fields of one request in a batch that are not repeated
with the other requests.
+ type: object
+ required:
+ - uri
+ - headers
Review Comment:
I agree, but I grandfathered this one in from the singular
`RemoteSignRequest`
I know it is required in `RemoteSignRequest` for backward compatibility even
after introducing `remote-presigning`
(https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/18080) - do we want to divert away from
that here? I was worried that it would be confusing to have different
nullability semantic for the two
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
