Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[1/n] Add should persist column to artf table #1390

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jun 6, 2023

Conversation

likawind
Copy link
Contributor

Describe your changes and why you are making these changes

This PR adds a should_persist column to artifact table to enable future supports for opt-out data snapshots. We do not add such column on workflow level to avoid complex application logic (but some complexities may be pushed to client side esp. UI).

Related issue number (if any)

ENG 3000

Loom demo (if any)

Updated queries and unit tests. The existing unit tests should cover the update.

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have created a descriptive PR title. The PR title should complete the sentence "This PR...".
  • I have performed a self-review of my code.
  • I have included a small demo of the changes. For the UI, this would be a screenshot or a Loom video.
  • If this is a new feature, I have added unit tests and integration tests.
  • I have run the integration tests locally and they are passing.
  • I have run the linter script locally (See python3 scripts/run_linters.py -h for usage).
  • All features on the UI continue to work correctly.
  • Added one of the following CI labels:
    • run_integration_test: Runs integration tests
    • skip_integration_test: Skips integration tests (Should be used when changes are ONLY documentation/UI)

@likawind likawind requested review from kenxu95 and saurav-c May 31, 2023 00:23
@likawind likawind added the run_integration_test Triggers integration tests label May 31, 2023
…g-3000-allow-users-to-opt-out-of-data-snapshots-1
…g-3000-allow-users-to-opt-out-of-data-snapshots-1
Copy link
Contributor

@kenxu95 kenxu95 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM - actually having it at the artifact-level might be better, in case we want to enforce deletion policy with artifact granularity?

@likawind
Copy link
Contributor Author

likawind commented Jun 1, 2023

@kenxu95 yes in the task description we actually explicitly want artifact level control: https://linear.app/aqueducthq/issue/ENG-3000/allow-users-to-opt-out-of-data-snapshots

@likawind likawind merged commit 1c55306 into main Jun 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
run_integration_test Triggers integration tests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants