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

feat: Azure Blob Storage attachment support #136

Closed
drodil opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #255
Closed

feat: Azure Blob Storage attachment support #136

drodil opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #255
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@drodil
Copy link
Owner

drodil commented Mar 27, 2024

Apart from AWS S3, there could be support to upload attachments to Azure Blob Storage

@drodil drodil added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Apr 5, 2024
@jmezach
Copy link
Contributor

jmezach commented Jan 6, 2025

This could be useful for our organization and would be willing to contribute something for this. Do you have any pointers for what this might look like?

@drodil
Copy link
Owner Author

drodil commented Jan 6, 2025

Basically it would require integration to blob storage (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/blobs/storage-quickstart-blobs-nodejs) and then needed configuration values to the plugin config (auth, account name, container name etc.) with sane defaults of course. Backend changes should be placed in the attachments.ts route and the related files.

@jmezach
Copy link
Contributor

jmezach commented Jan 6, 2025

That doesn't look too complicated 👍. I'll see if I can get something together.

@jmezach
Copy link
Contributor

jmezach commented Jan 6, 2025

Looking at it a bit more it seems that both the GET and DELETE operations have some specific logic in attachments.ts for specific storage solutions, while the POST operation is entirely implemented in the corresponding Storage class. Would it make sense to refactor this a bit so that all Storage classes implement a common interface so that we could plugin alternative implementations fairly easily?

@drodil
Copy link
Owner Author

drodil commented Jan 6, 2025

Yeah makes sense, it's getting quite bloated with new storage providers

@jmezach
Copy link
Contributor

jmezach commented Jan 6, 2025

@drodil Created PR #255

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants