I put this in slack as well, but we have at least one use case that require human-readable names.
Specifically: names of files in data packages exported to researchers. We might be able to reconfigure things so that this is no longer necessary, but it would require some investigation to see how feasible that would be. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Jill Vogel <j...@opencraft.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > Even if we use something external like urlsafe_b64encode, I would still > rather have a shared library that returns the officially sanctioned > opaque-key safe filenames. > > I've started an opaque-keys PR > <https://github.com/edx/opaque-keys/pull/74>, but it just copies the > existing functionality and tests. > > Should I update that PR to handle any OpaqueKey? > > And would you like me to use base64.urlsafe_b64encode, or is it ok to use > the existing alphanumeric logic? > > Thanks! > -- > Jill > @OpenCraft <http://opencraft.com/> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "General Open edX discussion" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/edx-code/CAMZ1AtKwTOLwwJCNoU9mAGr_gXDaR__nYNRM_ppKhGr7undRPw% > 40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/edx-code/CAMZ1AtKwTOLwwJCNoU9mAGr_gXDaR__nYNRM_ppKhGr7undRPw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "General Open edX discussion" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/edx-code/CAN%3Dj4kH2FHwkgPgqudU-3gzMBZ%2BnmBE5DK4OvKdP2zYRmXwUuQ%40mail.gmail.com.
