Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 10, 2020. It is now read-only.

refactor: use getIpfs not ipfs from argv #37

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 31, 2019
Merged

Conversation

alanshaw
Copy link

Using getIpfs gives the handlers the power to create an IPFS when needed instead of having to create it upfront for all handlers even if they don't use it. It allows operations like echo "hello" | jsipfs add -q | jsipfs cid base32 to work without jsipfs cid base32 failing because it's trying to acquire a repo lock when it doesn't use IPFS at all.

Using getIpfs gives the handlers the power to create an IPFS when needed instead of having to create it upfront for all handlers even if they don't use it. It allows operations like `echo "hello" | jsipfs add -q | jsipfs cid base32` to work without `jsipfs cid base32` failing because it's trying to acquire a repo lock when it doesn't use IPFS at all.

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Alan Shaw <alan.shaw@protocol.ai>
@ghost ghost assigned alanshaw Jan 31, 2019
@ghost ghost added the in progress label Jan 31, 2019
@alanshaw alanshaw changed the title refactor: use getIpfs not ipfs from argv [WIP] refactor: use getIpfs not ipfs from argv Jan 31, 2019
Copy link
Collaborator

@achingbrain achingbrain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@achingbrain achingbrain merged commit b0acd08 into master Jan 31, 2019
@achingbrain achingbrain deleted the refactor/getIpfs branch January 31, 2019 16:58
@ghost ghost removed the in progress label Jan 31, 2019
@achingbrain
Copy link
Collaborator

Released as 0.9.1

@alanshaw alanshaw changed the title [WIP] refactor: use getIpfs not ipfs from argv refactor: use getIpfs not ipfs from argv Feb 4, 2019
@alanshaw alanshaw mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2019
1 task
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants