Implement new with_read_only Zarr Store method#1021
Merged
Conversation
This new method is not really implementable in Icechunk. If the user created a readonly session there is no real good way to turn it into a writable session, and viceversa. The implementation we are writing "lies" in this sense. It's pretending to return a new store with the requested readonly-ness, but not really.
mpiannucci
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2025
dcherian
approved these changes
Jun 30, 2025
Collaborator
dcherian
left a comment
dcherian
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add an FAQ entry saying that if you want true read-only create a readonly_session
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
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This new method is not really implementable in Icechunk. If the user created a readonly session there is no real good way to turn it into a writable session, and viceversa.
The implementation we are writing "lies" in this sense. It's pretending to return a new store with the requested readonly-ness, but not really.