Fixing DatabricksNotebookOperator invalid dependency graph issue

[dheerajkumar-solanki]

Fixing the DatabricksNotebookOperator invalid dependency graph issue, this comes when dependencies are defined in DatabricksWorkflowTaskGroup. Issue is child task DatabricksNotebookOperator and DatabricksTaskOperator task referencing itself. Issue in _generate_databricks_task_key function which is incorrectly generating depends_on task value.

closes: #47983

---

^ 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.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/README.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[jroachgolf84]

@dheerajkumar-solanki, nice stuff! I was going to approach this in a bit of a different way, but I like what you did. Question; were you able to run that DAG that you originally had posted?

[jroachgolf84]

There were a few other places where I think we might need to make changes.

[dheerajkumar-solanki]

There were a few other places where I think we might need to make changes.

Which places, can you provide some context, so I can update the PR.

[dheerajkumar-solanki]

@dheerajkumar-solanki, nice stuff! I was going to approach this in a bit of a different way, but I like what you did. Question; were you able to run that DAG that you originally had posted?

Yes, I was able to run the failed DAG.

[ghost]

This was one of the places I believe would need a change (and was part of the original PR that we believe may have been "breaking").

https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/3dbed17b0ef52b3a46483219feb4b311251990eb/providers/databricks/src/airflow/providers/databricks/plugins/databricks_workflow.py#L321C1-L337C115

[jroachgolf84]

@dheerajkumar-solanki, how are things going on your side? Have those unit-tests been run?

[dheerajkumar-solanki]

This was one of the places I believe would need a change (and was part of the original PR that we believe may have been "breaking").

https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/3dbed17b0ef52b3a46483219feb4b311251990eb/providers/databricks/src/airflow/providers/databricks/plugins/databricks_workflow.py#L321C1-L337C115

I checked the code and previous MR, there is no change required as we have not change the function definition of databricks_task_key.

All the databricks unit test files are running fine.

[dheerajkumar-solanki]

@pankajkoti @jroachgolf84 One of the tests pipeline is failing Tests / CI image checks / MyPy checks (mypy-providers) (pull_request), doesn't look like from the changes in this PR. Is it just due to my branch is not up to date with base branch or any other issue?

Also, there is another MR on this same issue (#48623), I like his solution but I think some pieces are missing in the MR. what would be next step in this MR now?

[potiuk]

rebase first and make it green

[dheerajkumar-solanki]

rebase first and make it green

@potiuk rebase is done, waiting for workflow approval to run the test again.

[boring-cyborg]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request! You are invited to check our Issue Tracker for additional contributions.

[potiuk]

Thanks!