Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add StorageContentGet function #111

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 5, 2024
Merged

Add StorageContentGet function #111

merged 3 commits into from
Feb 5, 2024

Conversation

alperencelik
Copy link
Contributor

This PR tries to add a function to get all existing content from node's specified storage.

The following API documentation:

https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/api-viewer/#/nodes/{node}/storage/{storage}/content

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 22, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (fdb95a1) 25.95% compared to head (ea6e142) 25.86%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
nodes.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
storage.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #111      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   25.95%   25.86%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          15       15              
  Lines        1753     1759       +6     
==========================================
  Hits          455      455              
- Misses       1278     1284       +6     
  Partials       20       20              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@alperencelik
Copy link
Contributor Author

alperencelik commented Jan 22, 2024

IMO, there is still an option to get content by type but in my use case I would like to get all contents and filter by filename so I thought adding this function might be a proper implementation. I hope I didn't miss anything.

@luthermonson
Copy link
Owner

Would this be better as a receiver on Storage and in this file?

@alperencelik
Copy link
Contributor Author

Would this be better as a receiver on Storage and in this file?

That makes more sense to me as well so updated accordingly.

@luthermonson luthermonson merged commit 7d43d0f into luthermonson:main Feb 5, 2024
1 of 3 checks passed
@luthermonson
Copy link
Owner

thanks for the pr! i cut a beta3 in case you need this and want to pin to something

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants