Skip to content

0.12.3 backports #433

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
crepererum merged 12 commits into from
Jul 11, 2025
Merged

0.12.3 backports #433

crepererum merged 12 commits into from
Jul 11, 2025

Conversation

@crepererum
Copy link
Contributor

@crepererum crepererum commented Jul 10, 2025

See #428.

Content

PR Included
#404 ✅
#399 ✅
#407 ❌
#406 ✅
#418 ✅
#417 ✅
#422 ✅
#412 ✅
#410 ✅
#421 ✅
#426 ✅
#429 ✅
#403 ✅

kylebarron and others added 12 commits June 16, 2025 10:11
@kylebarron
minor: Pin tracing-attributes, tracing-core to fix CI (apache#404)
70cd178 
* ci: Pin tracing-attributes to fix CI

* Pin tracing-core
@kylebarron
Fix azure path parsing (apache#399)
f422dce
@crepererum
refactor: PutMultiPartOpts => PutMultiPartOptions (apache#406)
1ce68c0 
See apache#339. The old name is kept as a deprecated alias for now.
@mbrobbel @crepererum
chore: fix clippy 1.88 warnings (apache#418)
259aee5
@raimannma @crepererum
chore: update quick-xml to version 0.38.0 (apache#417)
4d66f8b
@crepererum
fix: expose source of RetryError (apache#422)
d65799b 
This used to work once but got broken during refactoring. Added a test
to catch regressions.

See apache#48 where -- I
think -- we decided that instead of printing entire error chains in
`Display` the API users shall walk the error chain. This is especially
relevant for error type that we do NOT control, like upstream `request`
types.
@jder @crepererum
Prevent compilation error with all cloud features but fs turned on (a…
9df5965 
…pache#412)
@paraseba @crepererum
Retry requests when status code is 429 (apache#410)
3bc8c49 
This code is what HTTP uses to indicate the client has sent too many
requests in a given amount of time. It may sound counter-intuitive to
retry in this situation, but that's why we use an exponential backoff
mechanism. It gives the server the opportunity to recover, without
failing the requests immediately.

The retry mechanism already works in object stores like S3 because they
return a server error. But without this change, we are not handling GCS
properly. GCS returns a client error `429 Too Many Requests` instead.
This change enables retries on this response too.

A more advanced retry mechanism would use the optional response header
`Retry-After`, but that is beyond the scope of this PR.

Closes: apache#309
@hugocasa @crepererum
fix(gcp): don't panic if read pem fails (apache#421)
1474a7d
@criccomini @crepererum
feat: retry on 429 and 408 (apache#426)
bed1cea
@alamb @crepererum
Minor: Update release schedule on README (apache#429)
1de3c78
@ByteBaker @crepererum
feat (azure): support for account in 'az://' URLs (apache#403)
7242a95
@crepererum crepererum mentioned this pull request Jul 10, 2025
Closed
7 tasks
mbrobbel
mbrobbel approved these changes Jul 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
src/lib.rs

// See <https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs-object-store/issues/339>.
#[doc(hidden)]
#[deprecated(note = "Use PutMultipartOptions", since = "0.13.0")]
Copy link
Member

@mbrobbel mbrobbel Jul 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we should use a different version here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@crepererum crepererum Jul 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this needs to be fixed on main too, I'm gonna fix that in a release notes PR which needs to land on main anyways.

@vladidobro
Copy link

vladidobro commented Jul 11, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Hello!

Please excuse me interrupting the release flow, but do you think it could be possible to fit in this very small MR (not yet merged nor approved nor reviewed)? #431
As far as I understand, it should be in line with object_store goals (sensible compatibility with fsspec URLs).
Of course if there would need to be some discussion about it, then not... I am only asking in case you would consider it an obvious fix.

@crepererum
Copy link
Contributor Author

crepererum commented Jul 11, 2025

Please excuse me interrupting the release flow, but do you think it could be possible to fit in this very small MR (not yet merged nor approved nor reviewed)? #431

No, not merged on main, hence no cherry-picking.

@crepererum crepererum merged commit 7242a95 into apache:release/0.12 Jul 11, 2025
9 checks passed
@crepererum
Copy link
Contributor Author

crepererum commented Jul 11, 2025

I've manually merged the PR using git because GitHub insisted on squashing the commits -- which would have been a mess.

@crepererum crepererum deleted the crepererum/0.12.3-backports branch July 11, 2025 09:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@mbrobbel mbrobbel mbrobbel approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@paraseba paraseba paraseba approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.