Skip to content

Conversation

@wojsamjan
Copy link

Add links to assets for BigQuery Data Transfer

Co-authored-by: Wojciech Januszek [email protected]
Co-authored-by: Lukasz Wyszomirski [email protected]
Co-authored-by: Maksim Yermakou [email protected]


^ Add meaningful description above

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code change, Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in UPDATING.md.

@wojsamjan wojsamjan requested a review from turbaszek as a code owner March 15, 2022 11:42
@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg bot added area:providers provider:google Google (including GCP) related issues labels Mar 15, 2022
Comment on lines 41 to 43
Copy link
Contributor

@josh-fell josh-fell Mar 15, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These args don't seem to be optional. Looks like they will always be provided when BigQueryDataTransferConfigLink.persist() is called but I could be missing something along the way here. I suspect the link value wouldn't be correct if these were missing too?

Suggested change
region: Optional[str],
config_id: Optional[str],
project_id: Optional[str],
region: str,
config_id: str,
project_id: str,

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could the type annotation be added here as well?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this possibly a breaking change in behavior?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, without this it did not work correctly. Before only checking is state in expected (succeed), but what if this already failed? As I understand and implement sensors is: if succeed then return True, if waiting - False, if failed - raise. Otherwise we are waiting for the result which has already failed - what is the reason in this situation?
The problem I noticed is that the sensor was waiting in loop for the already failed result - what I think is not something expected

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor

eladkal commented Mar 27, 2022

We probably need to update #9941 accordingly

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Mar 27, 2022

Need to resolve conflicts first too.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Mar 31, 2022

We probably need to update #9941 accordingly

Updated :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:providers provider:google Google (including GCP) related issues

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants