Option to omit transfer on same storage volume

[hUwUtao]

Hi, I'm building a Ceph based infrastructure that syncs the volume (ex: /var/lib/pelican/volumes) across nodes in cluster. A roadblock is that wings cares about transfer and cleaning up, the stack will not work as expected.

A configuration option is added for the purpose to circumvent this behavior. When configured:

system:
  transfers:
    storage_pool: something123

Wings will not attempt to transfer files or cleanup.

It will still move server to storage_pool that is not match, but the cleanup will not work at the moment.

At the moment, it works with the stack if simply configured with a common name across nodes with the following setup:

• Replicated NFS/CephFS
• S3 Backup (file backup is expected for transfers)

If the configuration left empty, wings will behave as just normal.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

• Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
• Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
• Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
   | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
   Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[parkervcp]

I would change this to a struct with an Enabled bool and PoolName stringor something similar to you are not using "" as a value to match to mean enabled.

It would look like this.

StoragePool struct {
    Enabled bool `default:"false" yaml:"enabled"`
    PoolName string `yaml:"pool_name"`
} `yaml:"storage_pool"`

[parkervcp]

I know this would change all the other code you wrote but is arguably a better choice.