You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With #584, it is proposed to transfer the /jobs/{jobId}/inputs endpoint from Part 4 to Part 1 because it is useful to know what a process was executed with (as a reminder, that endpoint return not only inputs, but also headers and other relevant details to allow re-executing the process exactly as originally submitted).
One possible ambiguity arises with large inputs. If a multi-GB/TB data input was provided inline (using value) for process execution, it is most realistically not desirable (or even feasible with server constraints) to respond with the same large embedded data in /jobs/{jobId}/inputs.
Therefore, it might be necessary to introduce a permission for the server to request (or auto-select) a Prefer: return=minimal definition, such that the large inline data could be substituted to an equivalent already-staged URI (using href). That would be essentially equivalent to the current Job outputs (or inline sync response) behaviour where if the "server deems that the size of an output value is large", it can decide to return it differently.
There might be other Content-Transfer-Encoding and base64 considerations to include as well in that response.
Note
Originally mentioned in #580
With #584, it is proposed to transfer the
/jobs/{jobId}/inputsendpoint from Part 4 to Part 1 because it is useful to know what a process was executed with (as a reminder, that endpoint return not onlyinputs, but alsoheadersand other relevant details to allow re-executing the process exactly as originally submitted).One possible ambiguity arises with large inputs. If a multi-GB/TB data input was provided inline (using
value) for process execution, it is most realistically not desirable (or even feasible with server constraints) to respond with the same large embedded data in/jobs/{jobId}/inputs.Therefore, it might be necessary to introduce a permission for the server to request (or auto-select) a
Prefer: return=minimaldefinition, such that the large inline data could be substituted to an equivalent already-staged URI (usinghref). That would be essentially equivalent to the current Job outputs (or inline sync response) behaviour where if the "server deems that the size of an output value is large", it can decide to return it differently.There might be other
Content-Transfer-Encodingandbase64considerations to include as well in that response.