-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
Invalid legacy argument for Customer Provided Key #17835
Copy link
Copy link
Closed
Labels
ClientThis issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library.This issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library.StorageStorage Service (Queues, Blobs, Files)Storage Service (Queues, Blobs, Files)bugThis issue requires a change to an existing behavior in the product in order to be resolved.This issue requires a change to an existing behavior in the product in order to be resolved.customer-reportedIssues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization.Issues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
ClientThis issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library.This issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library.StorageStorage Service (Queues, Blobs, Files)Storage Service (Queues, Blobs, Files)bugThis issue requires a change to an existing behavior in the product in order to be resolved.This issue requires a change to an existing behavior in the product in order to be resolved.customer-reportedIssues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization.Issues that are reported by GitHub users external to the Azure organization.
The
BlobClientclass contains in many of its methods the capability to add a Customer Provided Key for encryption, by supplying acpkargument that must contain aCustomerProvidedEncryptionKeyobject. Inside those methods, theCustomerProvidedEncryptionKeyis converted into aCpkInfoobject, as this seems to be the object that the lower-level method wants.However apparently the
CpkInfoclass was modified a while ago, and one of its attributes,encryption_algorithm, was removed, while the code inBlobClientstill tries to set it. An example (though it happens several times in the file) can be seen at :azure-sdk-for-python/sdk/storage/azure-storage-blob/azure/storage/blob/_blob_client.py
Lines 369 to 370 in e43995b
This produces warnings
.... i.e. it seems that the operation does go through, though the code seems to be a leftover