🐛 use ip address in upload link check

[bisgaard-itis]

What do these changes do?

• Fix bug when getting status of upload task from storage

Related issue/s

• resolves #5848

How to test

• run e2e client tests

Dev-ops checklist

• [x] No ENV changes or I properly updated ENV (read the instruction)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 70.00000% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.8%. Comparing base (cafbf96) to head (657b515). Report is 228 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #5849 +/- ## ========================================= - Coverage 84.5% 79.8% -4.8% ========================================= Files 10 1373 +1363 Lines 214 56873 +56659 Branches 25 1285 +1260 ========================================= + Hits 181 45421 +45240 - Misses 23 11185 +11162 - Partials 10 267 +257 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | `79.8% <70.0%> (-4.8%)` | :arrow_down: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [...es/dynamic\_sidecar/docker\_service\_specs/sidecar.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=services%2Fdirector-v2%2Fsrc%2Fsimcore_service_director_v2%2Fmodules%2Fdynamic_sidecar%2Fdocker_service_specs%2Fsidecar.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation#diff-c2VydmljZXMvZGlyZWN0b3ItdjIvc3JjL3NpbWNvcmVfc2VydmljZV9kaXJlY3Rvcl92Mi9tb2R1bGVzL2R5bmFtaWNfc2lkZWNhci9kb2NrZXJfc2VydmljZV9zcGVjcy9zaWRlY2FyLnB5) | `87.6% <100.0%> (ø)` | | | [...rage/src/simcore\_service\_storage/handlers\_files.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=services%2Fstorage%2Fsrc%2Fsimcore_service_storage%2Fhandlers_files.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation#diff-c2VydmljZXMvc3RvcmFnZS9zcmMvc2ltY29yZV9zZXJ2aWNlX3N0b3JhZ2UvaGFuZGxlcnNfZmlsZXMucHk=) | `99.2% <100.0%> (ø)` | | | [packages/service-library/src/servicelib/utils.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=packages%2Fservice-library%2Fsrc%2Fservicelib%2Futils.py&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation#diff-cGFja2FnZXMvc2VydmljZS1saWJyYXJ5L3NyYy9zZXJ2aWNlbGliL3V0aWxzLnB5) | `79.4% <50.0%> (ø)` | | ... and [1349 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/ITISFoundation/osparc-simcore/pull/5849/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=ITISFoundation)

[bisgaard-itis]

@odeimaiz @ignapas @jsaq007 @GitHK I am a bit unsure which implications this might have for the frontend. Do you know? Perhaps we need to discuss a bit. The implication of this PR is that the link to get the state of the completion task (when performing a multipart upload) has the IP address and port of the correct replica of storage. From the point of view of the frontend you might need to correct this back to http://storage/....

[odeimaiz]

The frontend doesn't make any url composition in this case, it just uses the presigned links provided by the backend. I believe that if there is no CORS issues, it should be fine.

[bisgaard-itis]

The frontend doesn't make any url composition in this case, it just uses the presigned links provided by the backend. I believe that if there is no CORS issues, it should be fine.

Perfect! Thanks for checking @odeimaiz

[sonarcloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud