Merge GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor logic to GCSObjectExistenceSensor #30014
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:providers
provider:google
Lee-W
force-pushed
the
merge-async-logic-from-GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensorto-GCSObjectExistenceSens
branch
7 times, most recently
from
1679cc2
to
dc22aa0
Compare
Lee-W
force-pushed
the
merge-async-logic-from-GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensorto-GCSObjectExistenceSens
branch
from
dc22aa0
to
fe7843c
Compare
uranusjr
reviewed
Mar 20, 2023
uranusjr
reviewed
Mar 20, 2023
Comment on lines
-173
to
+180
| Use the :class:`~airflow.providers.google.cloud.sensors.gcs.GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor` | ||
| (deferrable version) if you would like to free up the worker slots while the sensor is running. | ||
| :class:`~airflow.providers.google.cloud.sensors.gcs.GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor` is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Please use :class:`~airflow.providers.google.cloud.sensors.gcs.GCSObjectExistenceSensor` and use the deferrable mode in that operator. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t recall our deprecation strategy around providers; should the documentation simply be removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we remove the documentation here, the CI will not pass. It says we miss the example DAG for GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor
uranusjr
changed the title
uranusjr
changed the title
Lee-W
force-pushed
the
merge-async-logic-from-GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensorto-GCSObjectExistenceSens
branch
from
fe7843c
to
8dc4197
Compare
…syncSensor to GCSObjectExistenceSensor add deprecation warning to GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor
…hen its deferrable attribute is set to True
…eferrable mode and GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor deprecation
Lee-W
force-pushed
the
merge-async-logic-from-GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensorto-GCSObjectExistenceSens
branch
from
8dc4197
to
15f4b4e
Compare
uranusjr
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2023
|
@uranusjr I noticed some of the CI steps are skipped. Should we restart them? |
|
Looks like the worker timed out. Retrying. |
potiuk
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2023
|
Nice! |
64 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why making this change?
apache-airflow-providers-google treats the deferred execution of its operators and sensors in a different way which might cause confusion. For example, BigQueryCheckOperator uses the deferrable parameter to toggle deferred execution while we need to use another sensor for GCSObjectExistenceSensor (i.e., GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor) to achieve the same thing.
What's changed?
In this pull request, I move the deferred logic from GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor to GCSObjectExistenceSensor so that we can keep the consistency and reduce maintenance effort. Instead of removing GCSObjectExistenceAsyncSensor, I add a deprecation warning in case there're users using it.
^ 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 newsfragments.