Move BaseHook class to task SDK#51873
Conversation
|
Green again finally!! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's create a GIthub issue to resolve Connection thing to have real sdk.Connection and for #51873 (comment) and #51873 (comment)
|
Thanks for the review @kaxil! Here are the issues which I will work on as follow ups: |
|
All of he AWS system tests have been failing since this commit merged. I reverted this one and #52766 locally to make sure and they pass with this reverted. I'm looking into it, but if any cause comes to mind, let me know. |
…OUND` Task SDK exception After apache#51873, the base hook's `get_connection` exception for when connection is not found was changed and was no longer being caught by `AwsGenericHook`. This change fixes that by using a robust approach. At some point, we should probably make the connection getter raise exceptions in a more consistent manner, maybe once we fully switch over to Task SDK.
|
The cause of this error was a change in the string representation of the exception after this PR was merged. In #52838, I changed it to a what seems like a more robust way of catching the "connection not found" exception. But I think at some point, we should probably make the connection getter raise exceptions in a more consistent manner (maybe once we fully switch over to Task SDK) so that callers of that method can have a simple try/except to handle the not found case |
Hey @ramitkataria what string representation changed? Could you elaborate a bit there? |
…OUND` Task SDK exception (#52838) After #51873, the base hook's `get_connection` exception for when connection is not found was changed and was no longer being caught by `AwsGenericHook`. This change fixes that by using a robust approach. At some point, we should probably make the connection getter raise exceptions in a more consistent manner, maybe once we fully switch over to Task SDK.
|
@amoghrajesh I have seen strange plugin initialization errors in https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/C06K9Q5G2UA/p1751744572678519 - is this related to this PR? |
|
@amoghrajesh Also antoher thing, maybe related? Started breeze on main via Is this related to this PR? Or shall I open a separate issue ticket? |
|
@jscheffl could be related. Can you please create issues(either for one for both)? I can only look on Monday, wont be around tomorrow |
|
closes: #51672
Moving the BaseHook class into task SDK, exactly where it should live similar to other base classes in sdk like notifiers, operators etc.
Testing: Running by all the methods defined on BaseHook -- old vs new
Running with the new path
DAG:
Running with the older path to check backcompat
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an 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 a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.