Storage - Content Validation Decoder Implementation with pipeline policy#47016
Merged
ibrandes merged 33 commits intoApr 30, 2026
Merged
Conversation
gunjansingh-msft
requested review from
alzimmermsft,
browndav-msft,
ibrandes,
kyleknap and
seanmcc-msft
as code owners
Contributor
API Change CheckAPIView identified API level changes in this PR and created the following API reviews |
kyleknap
reviewed
Nov 19, 2025
Member
kyleknap
left a comment
kyleknap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's looking good! It's great to see us getting a working end to implementation of downloads. I just left some higher-level comments as we keeping hashing out the download implementation.
ibrandes
reviewed
Jan 12, 2026
Member
ibrandes
left a comment
ibrandes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i will be 100% honest - i was really struggling to walk through the logic in here, there's so much to look at x) my comments should highlight some of the more confusing areas. don't worry about polishing anything too much, but adding more subfunctions, centralizing util logic, and reducing the nesting should make this a lot easier to follow.
overall, i think you're going down the right path with how you utilize and set the decoder state. also, definitely look into downloadToFileImpl as mentioned in one of my comments - ProgressListener and ProgressReporter might be able to help us reduce some of the boilerplate code you've had to write.
Contributor
|
Hi @gunjansingh-msft. Thank you for your interest in helping to improve the Azure SDK experience and for your contribution. We've noticed that there hasn't been recent engagement on this pull request. If this is still an active work stream, please let us know by pushing some changes or leaving a comment. Otherwise, we'll close this out in 7 days. |
github-actions
Bot
added
no-recent-activity
gunjansingh-msft
requested review from
a team,
JonathanGiles,
XiaofeiCao,
benbp,
danieljurek,
g2vinay,
haolingdong-msft,
joshfree,
kirankumarkolli,
maririos,
praveenkuttappan,
raych1,
samvaity,
srnagar,
weidongxu-microsoft and
weshaggard
as code owners
ibrandes
reviewed
Apr 6, 2026
ibrandes
reviewed
Apr 8, 2026
kyleknap
reviewed
Apr 14, 2026
Member
kyleknap
left a comment
kyleknap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's looking good. I like the overall structure of where the change is going. I have not dived too deep into the PR yet but just wanted to post some of the questions/comments that I had so far as I work through understanding the changes.
Member
Author
All the latest comments are addressed |
…pipelinepolicy Resolve conflicts in BuilderHelper (both decoder and encoder content validation policies) and StorageCrc64Calculator Javadoc. Align download path with ContentValidationAlgorithm rename; fix downloadStreamWithResponseInternal variable mix-up. Delegate CRC64/AUTO detection to ContentValidationModeResolver.isCrc64OrAuto from DownloadValidationUtils. Update decoder tests for setContentValidationAlgorithm; remove MD5 download test (enum no longer includes MD5). Fix incorrect @link in ContentValidationModeResolver Javadoc. Made-with: Cursor
ibrandes
reviewed
Apr 21, 2026
Member
ibrandes
left a comment
ibrandes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking good so far! mostly just had a couple comments on util cleanup and code consolidation - your decoder lifecycle handling looks good to me
kyleknap
reviewed
Apr 21, 2026
ibrandes
reviewed
Apr 22, 2026
kyleknap
reviewed
Apr 24, 2026
Member
kyleknap
left a comment
kyleknap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking good. Just leaving some more questions that I had as I'm working through fully understanding the implementation. Mainly focused on the policy and the decoded response class. Plan to dig more into the structured message decoder later.
kyleknap
reviewed
Apr 24, 2026
kyleknap
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2026
Member
kyleknap
left a comment
kyleknap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should be good to merge it into the feature branch as our base point. Just had one question that we can track as a follow up. From there, we can start sending smaller PR improvements to help break up the different iterations we wanted to make and make it easier to track/follow
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.