Hello @nganphtgit and thank you for submitting a PR!
I've already implemented the exclude option through the filter option in branch 3.0.0 (https://github.com/jeanbmar/s3-sync-client/pull/21). It will be released within a fews days, I just want to finish multipart transfers first. Sorry for not communicating better about this.
About versionId, I think we need to see the bigger picture.
I assume the field is used in your business logic and is not directly related to the sync operation. Am I right?
I'm not against the idea to add command outputs data to sync objects, but if we go for it:
We should consider adding the entire output (besides Body) and not only the VersionId field. I can see people using Metadata the same way you use VersionId for instance.
We need consistency between sync operations: it should be implemented for local to bucket, bucket to local and bucket to bucket.
Shall we do it for deleted objects?
Could you elaborate a bit about how you use the versionId? It could help with the solution design.
Hello @nganphtgit and thank you for submitting a PR!
I've already implemented the exclude option through the filter option in branch 3.0.0 (https://github.com/jeanbmar/s3-sync-client/pull/21). It will be released within a fews days, I just want to finish multipart transfers first. Sorry for not communicating better about this.
About
versionId
, I think we need to see the bigger picture. I assume the field is used in your business logic and is not directly related to the sync operation. Am I right? I'm not against the idea to add command outputs data to sync objects, but if we go for it:Could you elaborate a bit about how you use the versionId? It could help with the solution design.