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

Why don't we have a section in the docs under storage called Acl ? #573

Closed
jgeewax opened this issue May 9, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Why don't we have a section in the docs under storage called Acl ? #573

jgeewax opened this issue May 9, 2015 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.
Milestone

Comments

@jgeewax
Copy link
Contributor

jgeewax commented May 9, 2015

Seems that http://googlecloudplatform.github.io/gcloud-node/#/docs/v0.14.0/storage/acl is generated, but we don't have an item in the sidebar. Is that because we inlined the ACL-related methods into the Bucket/File as whatever.acl.method ?

@jgeewax jgeewax added type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue. docs labels May 9, 2015
@jgeewax jgeewax added this to the Core Future milestone May 9, 2015
@ryanseys
Copy link
Contributor

Yep. We don't expose Acl directly to the user, only through Bucket and File, which use this shared Acl class that you're talking about here.

@jgeewax
Copy link
Contributor Author

jgeewax commented May 11, 2015

That makes sense.

So should we expose this to the user? Or is it better left as a hidden mix-in style class?

@stephenplusplus
Copy link
Contributor

I only like keeping that page hidden because I worry it would be confusing for developers to differentiate between the file / bucket scenarios, then the default Bucket object. Keeping them doc'd on their module pages lets us have more control how the concepts are presented to the user.

But if you guys think it's more helpful having the ACL page as well, I'm cool with it.

@jgeewax jgeewax changed the title Why don't we have a section int he docs under storage called Acl ? Why don't we have a section in the docs under storage called Acl ? May 14, 2015
@jgeewax
Copy link
Contributor Author

jgeewax commented May 14, 2015

I have no preference at all - I think we're fine as is...

chingor13 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2022
Not really sure why the test is flaky.  Maybe without the await
statement, the process exist before the console is written to.

Fixies #565
chingor13 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2022
Not really sure why the test is flaky.  Maybe without the await
statement, the process exist before the console is written to.

Fixies #565
chingor13 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2022
Not really sure why the test is flaky.  Maybe without the await
statement, the process exist before the console is written to.

Fixies #565
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 15, 2022
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop*
---


## [3.1.0](googleapis/nodejs-redis@v3.0.0...v3.1.0) (2022-06-30)


### Features

* support regapic LRO ([#572](googleapis/nodejs-redis#572)) ([5b30a33](googleapis/nodejs-redis@5b30a33))

---
This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 11, 2022
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 13, 2022
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 10, 2022
This new generator will bring some changes to the generated code across all libraries, but the behavior will only change for nodejs-logging and nodejs-pubsub (those two libraries that use request batching). For other libraries, the changes should be minor (the createApiCall call is simplified) and it should be safe to merge them. Please talk to @alexander-fenster if you have any questions.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 325949033

Source-Author: Google APIs <[email protected]>
Source-Date: Mon Aug 10 21:11:13 2020 -0700
Source-Repo: googleapis/googleapis
Source-Sha: 94006b3cb8d2fb44703cf535da15608eed6bf7db
Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@94006b3
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 11, 2022
Not really sure why the test is flaky.  Maybe without the await
statement, the process exist before the console is written to.

Fixies #565
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 11, 2022
- [ ] Regenerate this pull request now.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 474338479

Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis@d5d35e0

Source-Link: googleapis/googleapis-gen@efcd3f9
Copy-Tag: eyJwIjoiLmdpdGh1Yi8uT3dsQm90LnlhbWwiLCJoIjoiZWZjZDNmOTM5NjJhMTAzZjY4ZjAwM2UyYTFlZWNkZTZmYTIxNmEyNyJ9
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2023
This PR was generated using Autosynth. 🌈

Synth log will be available here:
https://source.cloud.google.com/results/invocations/d54a068d-61f9-4f27-b46c-edc44b827fbe/targets

- [ ] To automatically regenerate this PR, check this box.
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2023
…or (#573)

Run the latest version of the generator, update google-gax, update gts, and remove direct dependencies on eslint.
sofisl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 25, 2023
…or (#573)

Run the latest version of the generator, update google-gax, update gts, and remove direct dependencies on eslint.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants