Check task attribute before use in sentry.add_tagging()

[LipuFei]

Check the the TaskInstance.task attribute before using it, because TaskInstance.task may not be set.

closes: #37142

[dirrao]

Can you add the test cased for the change?

[hussein-awala]

The change looks good, but it would be better to reproduce the bug in the unit tests and confirm that it is fixed with your change, in this case we can avoid breaking it again in the future.

[LipuFei]

@dirrao @hussein-awala I have added a test for this.

I had to refactor the sentry module because the old __init__.py makes it very difficult to test the ConfiguredSentry class. I kept the same structure and moved the 2 classes out to 2 separate files, so I can directly import ConfiguredSentry in a test.

And one more thing, I renamed DummySentry to BlankSentry because some CI check doesn't like the word "dummy"...

[eladkal]

Needs rebase and resolve conflicts

[eladkal]

@LipuFei can you fix static checks?

[LipuFei]

@LipuFei can you fix static checks?

@eladkal I will work on them.

[LipuFei]

@eladkal Static checks have been fixed. 😃

[eladkal]

Cool
@hussein-awala any further comments?

[eladkal]

This PR marked as solving #37142
but #37142 is already solved by #37002
can you please explain?

[LipuFei]

This PR marked as solving #37142 but #37142 is already solved by #37002 can you please explain?

Hi @eladkal , this PR fixes the problem from another angle. Although the issue has been fixed, I think we can still keep this PR, because my changes make Sentry code testable. We can add some test coverage on the Sentry code.

[eladkal]

This PR marked as solving #37142 but #37142 is already solved by #37002 can you please explain?

Hi @eladkal , this PR fixes the problem from another angle. Although the issue has been fixed, I think we can still keep this PR, because my changes make Sentry code testable. We can add some test coverage on the Sentry code.

OK @potiuk reviewed the first PR so lets wait for his review

[potiuk]

OK @potiuk reviewed the first PR so lets wait for his review

That's just related - it's a bigger change that requires thorough -review -the original one was a quick fix. But yes - this one is more comprehensive (thouh I'd classify it as refactor not fix)

This one is hard to review due to the way Git shows it. Could you please help a bit with the review @LipuFei by making some concise way of showing what has changed between the original and new code split out ?

[potiuk]

I think that would also help @eladkal and @hussein-awala to make such review.

[LipuFei]

@potiuk I will split the commits so they are easier to review.

[LipuFei]

@eladkal @potiuk @hussein-awala

Here is a summary of the changes:

• Commit 2d1800a is to check the attribute TaskInstance.task before use.
• Commit 24f118c is a refactor to add test:
  • DummySentry is renamed to BlankSentry due to a language check in GitHub Actions.
  • There are two Sentry classes: BlankSentry and ConfiguredSentry
    • BlankSentry is a dummy class that does nothing.
    • ConfiguredSentry actually does Sentry things.
  • Initially, both classes are in the airflow/sentry.py file. I moved BlankSentry and ConfiguredSentry out into two separate files airflow/sentry/blank.py and airflow/sentry/configured.py. The two classes are the same as before. With this refactor, I can directly import airflow/sentry/configured.py and test it. airflow/sentry/__init__.py has the same if-else-block as before.
  • Finally, I added a test tests/test_sentry.py to test ConfiguredSentry.add_tag()

[potiuk]

NICE. I had to do some more git comit dance and --ignore-space-change with diff helped . thanks for splitting it, that helped a bit to see that the second commit is indeed just a refactor.