Closed kevinykuo closed 5 years ago
Actually, seems like the current scheme enables pb_download("data/foobar.rds")
to work. I guess the end user isn't expected to look at the releases page to see what files are there since we'll provide download instructions in the workflow. Closing...
right, _
is probably common in user's own filenames, so we couldn't round trip. Of course we're banking on the assumption that the pattern.2f
doesn't appear in filenames, so it's not ideal.
Arguably there's a better solution than the current hack. e.g. one thing I think we could do is automatically tar/zip archive each file, separately, though you'd still need to ensure a unique filename of the archive. One could use a hash the path it contained, (or of the file contents, depending on if you wanted the link to be stable wrt location or wrt object contents). Though obviously that makes the name even more opaque.
(Of course users could zip up their whole archive themselves, but then you lose the ability to download just specific files.)
Currently if we upload
data/foobar.rds
we getdata.2ffoobar.rds
which may throw people off (esp. if one isn't familiar with URL encoding to get the%2f
->.2f
.) Should we consider just using the file name or using a different separator e.g._
?