feat: modularize checksums #1568
Conversation
| @@ -255,3 +256,14 @@ public class AWSSigV4Signer: SmithyHTTPAuthAPI.Signer { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| extension SigningConfig { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this method doesnt rely on checksums
| @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ import struct SmithyHTTPAuthAPI.SigningFlags | |||
| import struct Foundation.Date | |||
| import struct Foundation.TimeInterval | |||
| import struct Foundation.URL | |||
| import AWSSDKChecksums | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the signer still needs to depend on AWSSDKChecksums for setChunkedBody method
| @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extension Target.Dependency { | |||
| static var awsSDKEventStreamsAuth: Self { "AWSSDKEventStreamsAuth" } | |||
| static var awsSDKHTTPAuth: Self { "AWSSDKHTTPAuth" } | |||
| static var awsSDKIdentity: Self { "AWSSDKIdentity" } | |||
| static var awsSDKChecksums: Self { "AWSSDKChecksums" } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question: Is a separate module actually necessary for just a single extension with two methods?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wish more could be moved to AWSSDKChecksums but that's dependent on CRT HTTP Client being refactored in the future. I'd say even if its only two methods its good to have but I don't feel strongly. aws-chunked is pretty explicitly aws-only though and one of those methods adds it to the headers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. We could keep it the way it is in this PR, or move it into AWSClientRuntime. For both cases we would revisit this down the line. I don't feel strongly about either option. Unless Josh has preference for one over the other I suppose we can keep AWSSDKChecksums.
New modularization package:
Issue #
#1532
Description of changes
New/existing dependencies impact assessment, if applicable
Conventional Commits
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.