search

carrot / ship

⛔️ currently unmaintained ⛔️
Other
151 stars 14 forks source link

creating buckets/siteconfigs #33

Closed notslang closed 10 years ago

notslang commented 10 years ago

from @kylemac:

the creation of an s3 bucket has been super helpful to us in that past. mind opening up a discussion as an issue so we can discuss this?

notslang commented 10 years ago

oh, and the full commit message would prolly be relevant:

the s3 [api] doesn't let us specify a website config without including things like the error page and redirects (which we don't know), and creating a bucket is really a one-time thing... not something a deployment tool should necessarily be dealing with. maybe we could add this stuff back later but that website config bug needs to be fixed first.

jescalan commented 10 years ago

+1 to @kylemac's request. It doesn't really matter whether creating buckets is something deployment tools 'usually do', we use it frequently and it has been extremely useful. Would prefer not to remove this.

kylemac commented 10 years ago

yeah, maybe this is where we take a little bit of a liberty as the maintainers since it's been so helpful for us. I think we can assume index.html for the index document and if I'm not mistaken, we should be able to create a bucket w/o an error document. maybe @joshrowley can jump in since he was the one to add this feature in the beginning.

notslang commented 10 years ago

yeah, it's fine to assume index.html as the index document and we should be able to create a bucket w/o an error document (as the amazon web interface does), but it doesn't work with the current version of aws-sdk. So, before we can add that back we need to fix the sdk, or get amazon to fix it.

jescalan commented 10 years ago

This functionality is working perfectly in the latest tagged version. Are you saying the aws-sdk module was bumped and broke this functionality?

notslang commented 10 years ago

no, I didn't think that it ever worked... even the docs say that the error page and redirects are required parameters, and when I tried it it enforced that behavior.

jescalan commented 10 years ago

It works. We have been using it for months, creating buckets through ship and deploying sites. We have used this for large production sites without issue.

notslang commented 10 years ago

oh, sorry - I didn't know that. hmm... must just be a recent change. I'll look into that next.

joshrowley commented 10 years ago

I can't jump in on this today, I'm playing a bit of catch up with some client work. It's also been a while since I've looked at this code, but feel free to ask me any questions you might have on Slack @slang800.

kylemac commented 10 years ago

sorry @joshrowley, just meant your opinion on the discussion - not the actual implementation.

joshrowley commented 10 years ago

I'm in favor of automatic bucket creation and site config. The end user is saved from looking up the docs, finding the config in the AWS console (which is terrible), configuring, and testing. It just works.

I didn't handle any error page configuration, but I assumed index.html would be the index document.

kylemac commented 10 years ago

@slang800 sounds like if you can map josh's original implementation to the new API we should be able to get it to work. give that a shot.

notslang commented 10 years ago

yeah... actually I prolly just need to see what changed recently in https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js (because the api hasn't changed since 2006 & I tested it with josh's original implementation)

notslang commented 10 years ago

opened an issue here: https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js/issues/274