Destination Redshift - additional check method check, fix s3 file deletion

[jbfbell]

This changes Destination Redshift's check method to verify access to the svv_table_info table as well as fixes a bug related to the removal of s3 staging files if users selected this option

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Ignored Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
airbyte-docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Jan 16, 2024 8:59pm

[github-actions]

Before Merging a Connector Pull Request

Wow! What a great pull request you have here! 🎉

To merge this PR, ensure the following has been done/considered for each connector added or updated:

• PR name follows PR naming conventions
• Breaking changes are considered. If a Breaking Change is being introduced, ensure an Airbyte engineer has created a Breaking Change Plan.
• Connector version has been incremented in the Dockerfile and metadata.yaml according to our Semantic Versioning for Connectors guidelines
• You've updated the connector's metadata.yaml file any other relevant changes, including a breakingChanges entry for major version bumps. See metadata.yaml docs
• Secrets in the connector's spec are annotated with airbyte_secret
• All documentation files are up to date. (README.md, bootstrap.md, docs.md, etc...)
• Changelog updated in docs/integrations/<source or destination>/<name>.md with an entry for the new version. See changelog example
• Migration guide updated in docs/integrations/<source or destination>/<name>-migrations.md with an entry for the new version, if the version is a breaking change. See migration guide example
• If set, you've ensured the icon is present in the platform-internal repo. (Docs)

If the checklist is complete, but the CI check is failing,

1. Check for hidden checklists in your PR description

2. Toggle the github label checklist-action-run on/off to re-run the checklist CI.

[edgao]

mostly nits. curious what you think about overriding check directly vs exposing the method in the base class. lgtm otherwise

[jbfbell]

mostly nits. curious what you think about overriding check directly vs exposing the method in the base class. lgtm otherwise

@edgao opted to not override check because of the connection and exception handling already present. I wanted the additional checks to run inside of all that without duplicating, I think overriding the check method I would have to something more sequential like

super.check()
try {
additionalChecks()
} catch (Exception e) {
...
}
finally {
close()
}

[jbfbell]

/publish-java-cdk

🕑 https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/actions/runs/7547136162
✅ Successfully published Java CDK version=0.12.1!