Closed bsweger closed 8 months ago
Looks good to me too! The only question I had was whether it might be worth naming the option for host.name
something like "aws-s3"
, to be more specific in case there is ever another aws data storage option we decide to support? This is definitely more a question than an opinion; maybe S3 is the only reasonable option under aws, so we don't need that specificity.
Looks good to me too! Can we also add a note in NEWS.md
please :)? https://github.com/Infectious-Disease-Modeling-Hubs/schemas/blob/main/NEWS.md
DOH already done! Was looking in the wrong place!!
@elray1 Good question re: being explicit about the name of the cloud storage service. AFAIK, most cloud providers only have one option for cloud object storage (e.g., AWS has S3, Azure has blob).
But I agree with your point...why not be as clear as possible while also hedging our bets for the Glorious Future? Pushed another commit....lemme know what you think!
Merging this so we can create a "cloud-enabled" version of the admin schema. Still working on the corresponding hubDocs
PR over here: https://github.com/Infectious-Disease-Modeling-Hubs/hubDocs/pull/90
Resolves #65
This changeset adds an optional cloud group to admin-schema.json. If cloud.enabled is set to true, then the cloud.host properties must also be provided.
I versioned this as v2.0.1 because it's a non-breaking change, but will add a follow-up question in the comments about how we're capturing
repository_url