Skip to content

docs: use STORAGE_TYPE_* enum names in deployment storage example - #268

Open
hippi345 wants to merge 1 commit into
usememos:mainfrom
hippi345:cursor/docs-storage-type-enum-names-9390
Open

hippi345 wants to merge 1 commit into
usememos:mainfrom
hippi345:cursor/docs-storage-type-enum-names-9390

Conversation

@hippi345

@hippi345 hippi345 commented Oct 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Fixes usememos/memos#6407

The deployment-managed storage example on the docs site used short protojson enum names ("type": "S3", and prose listing DATABASE / LOCAL / S3). Those fail to decode: storages[].type expects STORAGE_TYPE_S3, STORAGE_TYPE_DATABASE, and STORAGE_TYPE_LOCAL.

This updates content/docs/configuration/deployment-configuration.mdx only so the published example matches what Memos 0.31 accepts. No application code changes (decode-error improvement is tracked separately in usememos/memos#6415).

STORAGE_TYPE_S3, STORAGE_TYPE_DATABASE, STORAGE_TYPE_LOCAL are the
required protojson enum names for storages[].type. The short names
(S3, DATABASE, LOCAL) fail startup with an invalid enum value error.

Fixes usememos/memos#6407
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review in Change Stack →

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration
  • Configuration used: Organization UI
  • Review profile: CHILL
  • Plan: Advanced
  • Run ID: 4cbd4413-703b-45dd-9666-3809fff879cd
📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 40feae0 and 6e57198.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • content/docs/configuration/deployment-configuration.mdx

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.


Walkthrough

The deployment configuration guide now lists STORAGE_TYPE_DATABASE, STORAGE_TYPE_LOCAL, and STORAGE_TYPE_S3 as storage type values. Its S3 example now uses STORAGE_TYPE_S3. The guide’s last-updated date changed to October 6, 2026.

Suggested reviewers: johnnyjoygh

Priority: ➖ Normal

Severity of issue fixed: Medium

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 6e571

The deployment guide now uses storage type values accepted by the configuration parser. No actionable merge risk is evident from this documentation change.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly identifies the documentation change to use STORAGE_TYPE_* enum names in the deployment storage example.
Description check ✅ Passed The description explains why the documented enum names must change and identifies the documentation-only scope.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Issue #6407 requires the deployment-managed storage example to use a value that Memos 0.31 can decode. The PR changes the prose to list STORAGE_TYPE_DATABASE, STORAGE_TYPE_LOCAL, and `STORAGE_TYPE…
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed The PR changes only the deployment-configuration documentation. The lastUpdated metadata change accompanies the correction to that document. No unrelated changes appear in the diff.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
  • Autopilot · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@hippi345
hippi345 marked this pull request as ready for review October 6, 2026 21:02

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Storage config (type field) of deployment-managed configuration does not work as documented

1 participant