feat: add append command #57
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray! ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| let src = tokio::fs::read(local).await?; | ||
| merged.extend_from_slice(&src); | ||
|
|
||
| self.write_remote(remote, merged, opts.parents).await |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The append operation reads the destination object and immediately overwrites it with write_remote without re-stat’ing or validating that the metadata is unchanged. If another client modifies the object between the initial stat/read and this write, their changes will be silently replaced by the stale buffer you read earlier. The same pattern exists in append_from_stdin below. Consider re-fetching metadata (e.g., ETag/size) just before writing and aborting when it differs to avoid clobbering concurrent updates.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
…ta from local files and stdin
freedom3219
force-pushed
the
feat-append
branch
from
2a5cc15 to
060fae2
Compare
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one! ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| } else { | ||
| (local_bytes, None, None) | ||
| } | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the target file is missing and --no-create is false, this branch sets (local_bytes, None, None) and skips the later ETag/size guard entirely, so we proceed to write_remote without re-statting. If another client creates the same path after the last stat but before our write, we overwrite their newly created content with only the local payload instead of appending or failing, losing data; the stdin variant at lines 271‑274 has the same gap. Consider re-checking for a newly created object (and merging or aborting) when both metadata checks are None.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| let (merged, etag_stat2, size_stat2) = if let Some(meta) = meta1.as_ref() { | ||
| let buf = self.operator.read(remote).await?.to_vec(); | ||
| let meta2 = self.stat_remote(remote).await?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new append path reads the entire existing remote object into a Vec (operator.read(...).to_vec()) and later merges it with the new data before writing. For large objects (e.g., multi‑GB logs), this forces the CLI to allocate the full current file plus the appended payload in memory, which will hang or OOM instead of appending. Consider streaming the append (or enforcing a size guard) so large files can be handled without duplicating the whole payload in RAM.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)
#47
What's changed and what's your intention?
feat: add append command for remote file operations
PR Checklist
Please convert it to a draft if some of the following conditions are not met.