Open jirikuncar opened 7 years ago
I don't see any issue with that. It seems that the only change which this would require would be to change the config:
RECORDS_UI_ENDPOINTS = dict(
recid=dict(
# ...
route='/records/<pid_value/files/<filename>',
view_imp='invenio_files_rest.views.file_download_ui',
record_class='invenio_records_files.api:Record',
)
)
Changed with
- view_imp='invenio_files_rest.views.file_download_ui',
+ view_imp='invenio_records_files.views.file_download_ui',
Do we need to keep record_file_factory
at all? It seems that it is only used by file_download_ui
.
In case somebody wants to use a different record_file_factory they can at the same time provide their own file UI endpoint as it means that there is probably not a 1 record -> 1 bucket relation anymore.
👍
Would make Files-REST more clean. @nharraud I would still keep record_file_factory
(which is anyway already located in Records-Files).
@lnielsen I meant removing it from the ext.py file in invenio-files-rest, not removing the function which is in invenio-records-files. If we move file_download_ui
to invenio-records-files it can directly use the function instead of using a config variable.
invenio-access
- used in permissions.py
- named tuple + flask_security.Permission when Invenio-Access is not installedinvenio-accounts
easy to remove after Invenio-Access is out@lnielsen after our discussion I believe this one can be closed, the removal of invenio-access
is not easy or feasible.
It would make package release process easier.
record_file_factory
andfile_download_ui
toinvenio_records_files
(cc @lnielsen @nharraud @tiborsimko)