Feat: Iceberg cache #355
Feat: Iceberg cache #355
Conversation
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes introduce various modifications across the Airbyte codebase, including the addition of custom message classes for JSON string handling, enhancements to connector execution and parsing methods, and the introduction of SQL processors for Iceberg and DuckDB. Additionally, utility functions for schema conversion have been added, and new dependencies for data manipulation and AWS interactions are now included in the project. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Connector
participant MessageParser
participant WriterInterface
User->>Connector: Execute command
Connector->>MessageParser: Parse messages
MessageParser->>Connector: Return parsed messages
Connector->>WriterInterface: Write data
WriterInterface-->>User: Confirm data written
wdyt? Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 21
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (18)
airbyte/caches/iceberg.py (3)
17-25: Consider reordering imports for better readability?The imports look good, but we could improve their organization slightly. What do you think about reordering them according to PEP 8 guidelines? Something like this:
from __future__ import annotations import warnings from iceberg_engine import IcebergEngineWarning from pydantic import PrivateAttr from airbyte._processors.sql.iceberg import IcebergConfig, IcebergSqlProcessor from airbyte.caches.base import CacheBaseThis groups standard library imports, third-party imports, and local imports separately. Wdyt?
4-14: Enhance the usage example for clarity?The usage example is helpful, but we could make it even better. How about these suggestions:
- Correct the import statement from
airbyte as abtoimport airbyte as ab.- Add a comment explaining what the
db_pathandschema_nameparameters represent.- Include an example of how to use the cache after initialization.
Something like this:
import airbyte as ab from airbyte.caches import IcebergCache # Initialize the Iceberg cache cache = IcebergCache( db_path="/path/to/my/iceberg-file", # Path to the Iceberg database file schema_name="myschema", # Name of the schema to use in the Iceberg database ) # Example usage of the cache cache.set("key", "value") retrieved_value = cache.get("key") print(retrieved_value) # Output: valueWhat do you think about these changes? They might make the example more informative for users.
37-41: Enhance class definition with type hints and docstring?The
IcebergCacheclass looks good, but we could make it even better. What do you think about these suggestions:
- Add type hints to the class attributes for better clarity.
- Expand the class docstring to provide more information about its purpose and usage.
Here's an example of how we could improve it:
from typing import Type class IcebergCache(IcebergConfig, CacheBase): """ A Iceberg-based cache implementation for PyAirbyte. This class provides a caching mechanism using Iceberg as the backend storage. It inherits from IcebergConfig for configuration options and CacheBase for standard cache operations. Attributes: _sql_processor_class (Type[IcebergSqlProcessor]): The SQL processor class used for database operations. """ _sql_processor_class: Type[IcebergSqlProcessor] = PrivateAttr(default=IcebergSqlProcessor)What are your thoughts on these changes? They could make the code more self-documenting and easier to understand for other developers.
airbyte/writers.py (2)
1-16: LGTM! Minor suggestion for the module docstring.The file structure and imports look good. I like the use of
from __future__ import annotationsfor better type hinting support.One small suggestion: What do you think about expanding the module docstring to provide a bit more context? Maybe something like:
"""Write interfaces for PyAirbyte. This module defines abstract base classes for Airbyte writers, providing a common interface for implementing various writing strategies in the PyAirbyte framework. """WDYT? This could give developers a clearer picture of the module's purpose at a glance.
18-27: LGTM! Small suggestion for thenameproperty docstring.The abstract class definition looks good, and I like the implementation of the
nameproperty. It's a neat way to provide a default name based on the class name.One small suggestion: How about expanding the docstring for the
nameproperty to include an example? Something like:@property def name(self) -> str: """Return the name of the writer. This is used for logging and state tracking. Returns: str: The name of the writer (e.g., 'MyCustomWriter') """ return self.__class__.__name__What do you think? This could help developers understand exactly what to expect from this property.
airbyte/_airbyte_message_overrides.py (1)
45-58: Minor optimization in the validator functionThe validator function looks good! I noticed a small opportunity for optimization. What do you think about combining the two conditions? Something like:
if "data" in values: if isinstance(values["data"], dict): values["data"] = json.dumps(values["data"]) elif not isinstance(values["data"], str): raise ValueError("Data must be a string or a dict")This change would reduce the number of checks and make the logic a bit more straightforward. Does this align with your intentions?
airbyte/_writers/parquet.py (4)
4-31: Consider cleaning up imports for better maintainabilityThere are a few unused imports and some that could be moved to the type-checking block. Would you like to consider the following changes?
Remove unused imports:
LiteralfromtypingAirbyteRecordMessage,AirbyteStateMessage,AirbyteStateTypefromairbyte_protocol.modelsexceptionsfromairbyteMove these imports to the type-checking block:
AirbyteMessagefromairbyte_protocol.modelsStateWriterBasefromairbyte._future_cdk.state_writersThis could help reduce clutter and potentially improve import time. What do you think?
Tools
Ruff
9-9:
typing.Literalimported but unusedRemove unused import:
typing.Literal(F401)
17-17: Move application import
airbyte_protocol.models.AirbyteMessageinto a type-checking blockMove into type-checking block
(TCH001)
18-18:
airbyte_protocol.models.AirbyteRecordMessageimported but unusedRemove unused import
(F401)
19-19:
airbyte_protocol.models.AirbyteStateMessageimported but unusedRemove unused import
(F401)
20-20:
airbyte_protocol.models.AirbyteStateTypeimported but unusedRemove unused import
(F401)
23-23:
airbyte.exceptionsimported but unusedRemove unused import:
airbyte.exceptions(F401)
24-24: Move application import
airbyte._future_cdk.state_writers.StateWriterBaseinto a type-checking blockMove into type-checking block
(TCH001)
34-41: Class structure looks good, consider adding more documentationThe ParquetWriter class is well-structured. To improve maintainability, would you consider adding more documentation? For example:
- Add a more detailed class docstring explaining the purpose and usage of the ParquetWriter.
- Add docstrings for the class attributes explaining their purpose.
- Consider adding type hints for the private attributes.
This could help future developers (including yourself) understand the class better. What are your thoughts on this?
52-58: _open_new_file method looks good, small suggestionThe method correctly opens a gzip file for writing. One small suggestion: instead of using
cast, you could specify the mode as"wt"to open the file in text mode. This would eliminate the need for casting. What do you think about this change?return gzip.open(file_path, "wt")This might make the code a bit cleaner. Thoughts?
60-70: _get_new_cache_file_path method looks good, small suggestionThe method effectively generates a new cache file path. One small suggestion: consider using
Path.joinpath()for constructing the file path. It can make the code a bit more readable and less prone to errors. What do you think about this change?return target_dir.joinpath(f"{stream_name}_{batch_id}{self.default_cache_file_suffix}")This might make the path construction a bit clearer. Thoughts?
airbyte/_processors/sql/iceberg.py (1)
35-35: Question aboutsupports_merge_insertI noticed that
supports_merge_insertis set to False. Is this intentional, or do you plan to support merge inserts in the future? If it's intentional, maybe we could add a brief comment explaining why, wdyt?airbyte/_util/polars.py (2)
1-11: LGTM! The imports and module docstring look good.The necessary imports are present, and the module docstring is concise. One small suggestion: Would you consider adding a brief explanation of what Polars is in the module docstring? It might help developers who are not familiar with the library. wdyt?
13-20: The PolarsStreamSchema class looks well-structured.The use of dataclasses is a good choice here. One suggestion: Have you considered adding type hints for the field default factories? It might improve code readability and IDE support. For example:
expressions: list[pl.Expr] = field(default_factory=list[pl.Expr]) arrow_schema: pa.Schema = field(default_factory=lambda: pa.schema([])) polars_schema: pl.Schema = field(default_factory=lambda: pl.Schema([]))What do you think about this change? It's a minor improvement but could help with type checking.
airbyte/_message_iterators.py (1)
13-13: Consider importingLiteralfromtypinginstead oftyping_extensions?The static analysis tool suggests importing
Literalfromtypinginstead oftyping_extensions. This might be possible if you're using Python 3.8+. What do you think about making this change? It could simplify the imports a bit. wdyt?-from typing_extensions import Literal, final +from typing import Literal +from typing_extensions import finalTools
Ruff
13-13: Import from
typinginstead:LiteralImport from
typing(UP035)
airbyte/_writers/file_writers.py (1)
Line range hint
73-91: Consider updating method documentation forflush_active_batchThe method
_flush_active_batchhas been renamed toflush_active_batch, making it public. The existing documentation looks good, but we might want to add a note about its public nature now. What do you think about adding a line like "This method is now public and can be called externally." to the docstring? WDYT?examples/run_polars_poc.py (1)
8-39: Consider using a logging configuration file for better maintainability.The current logging setup is inline. What do you think about moving this to a separate configuration file for easier management, especially if this script grows or if you need to reuse this logging setup in other scripts? This could make it easier to adjust log levels and formats across your project. Wdyt?
import logging.config logging.config.fileConfig('logging.conf') logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)airbyte/_connector_base.py (2)
Line range hint
351-397: Nice refactoring of_execute_and_parse!The separation of execution and parsing logic looks great. It improves readability and maintainability.
One small suggestion: What do you think about adding a docstring to explain the purpose of this method and its return type? Something like:
def _execute_and_parse( self, args: list[str], stdin: IO[str] | AirbyteMessageIterator | None = None, ) -> Generator[AirbyteMessage, None, None]: """Execute the connector with given arguments and parse the output into AirbyteMessages. Args: args: List of command-line arguments for the connector. stdin: Optional input stream or AirbyteMessageIterator. Yields: AirbyteMessage: Parsed messages from the connector output. Raises: AirbyteConnectorFailedError: If the connector execution fails. """This would provide clear documentation for future developers. WDYT?
398-424: Great addition of the_executemethod!The separation of execution logic into its own method is a solid improvement. It enhances modularity and makes the code easier to maintain and test.
A small suggestion: How about adding a type hint for the return value? It could look like this:
def _execute( self, args: list[str], stdin: IO[str] | AirbyteMessageIterator | None = None, ) -> Generator[str, None, None]:This would make the return type explicit and consistent with the method's docstring. What do you think?
| @@ -11,4 +11,5 @@ | |||
| "BatchHandle", | |||
| "FileWriterBase", | |||
| "JsonlWriter", | |||
| "ParquetWriter", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey there! 👋 Looks like we might be missing an import for ParquetWriter. What do you think?
I noticed that we've added "ParquetWriter" to the __all__ list, which is great for making it part of the public API. However, it seems we forgot to import it in this file. This could lead to issues when someone tries to import ParquetWriter from this module.
Would you like me to suggest an import statement for ParquetWriter? Or maybe you intended to define it in another file? Let me know your thoughts!
If you'd like, I can help draft the import statement or create a new file for the ParquetWriter class. Just say the word!
Tools
Ruff
14-14: Undefined name
ParquetWriterin__all__(F822)
airbyte/writers.py
Outdated
| def _write_airbyte_io_stream( | ||
| self, | ||
| stdin: IO[str], | ||
| *, | ||
| catalog_provider: CatalogProvider, | ||
| write_strategy: WriteStrategy, | ||
| state_writer: StateWriterBase | None = None, | ||
| progress_tracker: ProgressTracker, | ||
| ) -> None: | ||
| """Read from the connector and write to the cache.""" | ||
| self._write_airbyte_message_stream( | ||
| stdin, | ||
| catalog_provider=catalog_provider, | ||
| write_strategy=write_strategy, | ||
| state_writer=state_writer, | ||
| progress_tracker=progress_tracker, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| @abc.abstractmethod | ||
| def _write_airbyte_message_stream( | ||
| self, | ||
| stdin: IO[str] | AirbyteMessageIterator, | ||
| *, | ||
| catalog_provider: CatalogProvider, | ||
| write_strategy: WriteStrategy, | ||
| state_writer: StateWriterBase | None = None, | ||
| progress_tracker: ProgressTracker, | ||
| ) -> None: | ||
| """Write the incoming data.""" | ||
| ... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestions for improving method docstrings and type hinting.
The structure of these methods looks good, but I have a few suggestions that might make them even better:
- For
_write_airbyte_io_stream, what do you think about adding a more detailed docstring? Maybe something like:
def _write_airbyte_io_stream(
self,
stdin: IO[str],
*,
catalog_provider: CatalogProvider,
write_strategy: WriteStrategy,
state_writer: StateWriterBase | None = None,
progress_tracker: ProgressTracker,
) -> None:
"""Read from the connector and write to the cache.
This method serves as a wrapper around _write_airbyte_message_stream,
providing an interface specifically for IO stream inputs.
Args:
stdin (IO[str]): The input stream to read from.
catalog_provider (CatalogProvider): Provider for the catalog.
write_strategy (WriteStrategy): Strategy for writing data.
state_writer (StateWriterBase | None): Writer for state management.
progress_tracker (ProgressTracker): Tracker for progress updates.
"""
# ... existing implementation ...- For
_write_airbyte_message_stream, how about adding a docstring that explains the expected behavior for subclasses? Something like:
@abc.abstractmethod
def _write_airbyte_message_stream(
self,
stdin: IO[str] | AirbyteMessageIterator,
*,
catalog_provider: CatalogProvider,
write_strategy: WriteStrategy,
state_writer: StateWriterBase | None = None,
progress_tracker: ProgressTracker,
) -> None:
"""Write the incoming data.
This abstract method should be implemented by subclasses to define
the specific behavior for writing Airbyte messages.
Args:
stdin (IO[str] | AirbyteMessageIterator): The input stream or iterator to read from.
catalog_provider (CatalogProvider): Provider for the catalog.
write_strategy (WriteStrategy): Strategy for writing data.
state_writer (StateWriterBase | None): Writer for state management.
progress_tracker (ProgressTracker): Tracker for progress updates.
"""
...- Lastly, have you considered using more specific types for
catalog_provider,write_strategy, andprogress_tracker? If these are custom types defined elsewhere in your project, it might be helpful to import and use them directly in the type hints.
What are your thoughts on these suggestions? Do you think they would improve the clarity and usability of the code?
| AirbyteRecordMessageWithStrData = copy.deepcopy(AirbyteRecordMessage) | ||
| AirbyteStateMessageWithStrData = copy.deepcopy(AirbyteStateMessage) | ||
| AirbyteMessageWithStrData = copy.deepcopy(AirbyteMessage) | ||
|
|
||
| # Modify the data field in the copied class | ||
| AirbyteRecordMessageWithStrData.__annotations__["data"] = str | ||
| AirbyteStateMessageWithStrData.__annotations__["data"] = str | ||
|
|
||
| AirbyteRecordMessageWithStrData.data = Field(..., description="jsonified record data as a str") | ||
| AirbyteStateMessageWithStrData.data = Field(..., description="jsonified state data as a str") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using inheritance for custom classes
The current implementation using deep copies works well, but have you considered using inheritance instead? It might lead to a more maintainable and cleaner code structure. Something like:
class AirbyteRecordMessageWithStrData(AirbyteRecordMessage):
data: str = Field(..., description="jsonified record data as a str")
class AirbyteStateMessageWithStrData(AirbyteStateMessage):
data: str = Field(..., description="jsonified state data as a str")
class AirbyteMessageWithStrData(AirbyteMessage):
record: AirbyteRecordMessageWithStrData | None
state: AirbyteStateMessageWithStrData | NoneThis approach could potentially simplify the code and make it easier to manage in the future. What do you think? Does this align with your design goals?
| @overrides | ||
| def _write_record_dict( | ||
| self, | ||
| record_dict: StreamRecord, | ||
| open_file_writer: IO[str], | ||
| ) -> None: | ||
| # If the record is too nested, `orjson` will fail with error `TypeError: Recursion | ||
| # limit reached`. If so, fall back to the slower `json.dumps`. | ||
| try: | ||
| open_file_writer.write(orjson.dumps(record_dict).decode("utf-8") + "\n") | ||
| except TypeError: | ||
| # Using isoformat method for datetime serialization | ||
| open_file_writer.write(json.dumps(record_dict, default=lambda _: _.isoformat()) + "\n") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
_write_record_dict method handles edge cases well, some questions and suggestions
Great job on handling the potential orjson serialization issue! I have a few questions and suggestions:
-
Have you considered using a custom JSON encoder instead of the lambda function in the
json.dumpsfallback? This could potentially handle more complex objects. What do you think? -
The error message mentions a recursion limit. Would it be helpful to log this error when it occurs, to help with debugging?
-
Consider extracting the serialization logic into a separate method. This could improve readability and make it easier to test. Something like:
def _serialize_record(self, record: dict) -> str:
try:
return orjson.dumps(record).decode("utf-8")
except TypeError:
return json.dumps(record, default=lambda obj: obj.isoformat())
def _write_record_dict(self, record_dict: StreamRecord, open_file_writer: IO[str]) -> None:
open_file_writer.write(self._serialize_record(record_dict) + "\n")What are your thoughts on these suggestions?
| def write_state(self, state: AirbyteStateMessage) -> None: | ||
| """Write the state to the cache. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| state (AirbyteStateMessage): The state to write. | ||
|
|
||
| Implementation: | ||
| - State messages are written a separate file. | ||
| - Any pending records are written to the cache file and the cache file is closed. | ||
| - For stream state messages, the matching stream batches are flushed and closed. | ||
| - For global state, all batches are flushed and closed. | ||
| """ | ||
| stream_names: list[str] = [] | ||
| if state.type == AirbyteStateType.STREAM: | ||
| stream_names = [state.record.stream] | ||
| if state.type == AirbyteStateType.GLOBAL: | ||
| stream_names = list(self._buffered_records.keys()) | ||
| else: | ||
| msg = f"Unexpected state type: {state.type}" | ||
| raise exc.PyAirbyteInternalError(msg) | ||
|
|
||
| for stream_name in stream_names: | ||
| state_file_name = self.file_writer.get_active_batch(stream_name) | ||
| self.file_writer.flush_active_batch(stream_name) | ||
| self.file_writer._write_state_to_file(state) | ||
| return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion for write_state method
The implementation looks good, but I have a couple of suggestions:
- The
ifcondition forAirbyteStateType.GLOBAL(line 72) should probably be anelifto match the structure of the other conditions. - The
elseblock (lines 74-76) seems to be misplaced. It will only be reached if the state type is neither STREAM nor GLOBAL. Should this be aneliffor a specific state type?
What do you think about these changes? They might make the logic a bit clearer.
Also, the return statement on line 82 will exit the function after processing only the first stream. Is this intentional, or should we process all streams in stream_names?
Tools
Ruff
79-79: Local variable
state_file_nameis assigned to but never usedRemove assignment to unused variable
state_file_name(F841)
81-81: Private member accessed:
_write_state_to_file(SLF001)
| def main() -> None: | ||
| """Run the Polars proof of concept.""" | ||
| # test_my_source() # We don't need to run this every time - only for debugging | ||
| run_polars_perf_test( | ||
| file_type="parquet", | ||
| lazy=False, | ||
| expire_cache=False, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| if __name__ == "__main__": | ||
| main() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding command-line arguments and global error handling.
The main() function and script execution look good, but what do you think about making it more flexible and adding some global error handling? Here are a few suggestions:
- We could use argparse to allow users to specify parameters like file_type, lazy, and expire_cache from the command line.
- We could add a global try-except block to catch and log any unexpected errors.
What are your thoughts on these changes?
import argparse
def parse_args():
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Run Polars performance test.")
parser.add_argument("--file-type", choices=["jsonl", "parquet"], default="parquet", help="Output file type")
parser.add_argument("--lazy", action="store_true", help="Use lazy evaluation")
parser.add_argument("--expire-cache", action="store_true", help="Expire file cache")
return parser.parse_args()
def main() -> None:
args = parse_args()
run_polars_perf_test(
file_type=args.file_type,
lazy=args.lazy,
expire_cache=args.expire_cache,
)
if __name__ == "__main__":
try:
main()
except Exception as e:
logger.exception(f"An unexpected error occurred: {str(e)}")This approach would make the script more flexible and easier to use in different scenarios. It would also provide better error reporting for unexpected issues. What do you think about these changes?
airbyte/caches/base.py
Outdated
| @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ | |||
| from airbyte.caches._state_backend import SqlStateBackend | |||
| from airbyte.constants import DEFAULT_ARROW_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE, TEMP_FILE_CLEANUP | |||
| from airbyte.datasets._sql import CachedDataset | |||
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Redundant import of AirbyteWriterInterface?
I noticed that AirbyteWriterInterface is imported twice, once on line 22 and again on line 27. It seems like we might not need this second import. Would you mind if we removed the import on line 27 to keep things clean? What do you think?
-from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterfaceCommittable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface |
Tools
Ruff
27-27: Redefinition of unused
AirbyteWriterInterfacefrom line 22(F811)
airbyte/_util/telemetry.py
Outdated
| @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ | |||
| from airbyte.caches.base import CacheBase | |||
| from airbyte.destinations.base import Destination | |||
| from airbyte.sources.base import Source | |||
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider removing the redundant import?
I noticed that AirbyteWriterInterface is already imported in the TYPE_CHECKING block on line 54. Do you think we could remove this new import to avoid potential confusion or circular import issues? wdyt?
- from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterfaceCommittable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface |
Tools
Ruff
58-58: Redefinition of unused
AirbyteWriterInterfacefrom line 54(F811)
airbyte/destinations/base.py
Outdated
| @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ | |||
| from airbyte.results import ReadResult, WriteResult | |||
| from airbyte.sources.base import Source | |||
| from airbyte.strategies import WriteStrategy | |||
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Redundant import detected. Shall we remove it?
Hey there! 👋 I noticed that AirbyteWriterInterface is imported twice - once on line 27 and again on line 33. The second import seems redundant. What do you think about removing the import on line 33 to keep things clean? Or is there a specific reason for having it twice that I might be missing?
If you agree, here's a quick fix:
-from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterfaceLet me know what you think! 🙂
Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface |
Tools
Ruff
33-33: Redefinition of unused
AirbyteWriterInterfacefrom line 27(F811)
airbyte/progress.py
Outdated
| @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ | |||
| from airbyte.caches.base import CacheBase | |||
| from airbyte.destinations.base import Destination | |||
| from airbyte.sources.base import Source | |||
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential duplicate import - can we consolidate?
I noticed that we're importing AirbyteWriterInterface twice, once on line 57 and again on line 61. Could we possibly consolidate these imports to keep things clean? Or is there a specific reason for having both? wdyt?
If you agree, we could remove the duplicate import like this:
- from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterfaceCommittable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface |
Tools
Ruff
61-61: Redefinition of unused
AirbyteWriterInterfacefrom line 57(F811)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (5)
airbyte/_connector_base.py (3)
172-173: Consider using a more descriptive variable name for the message iterator.The change from
self._executetoself._execute_and_parselooks good. However, to improve readability, would you consider using a more descriptive variable name for the message iterator? For example,message_iteratorinstead ofmsg. This could make the code more self-explanatory. WDYT?- for msg in self._execute_and_parse(["spec"]): - if msg.type == Type.SPEC and msg.spec: - self._spec = msg.spec +for message_iterator in self._execute_and_parse(["spec"]): + if message_iterator.type == Type.SPEC and message_iterator.spec: + self._spec = message_iterator.spec
278-279: Consider adding a comment to explain the purpose of the check operation.The change from
self._executetoself._execute_and_parselooks good. To improve code documentation, would you consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the check operation? This could help future developers understand the intent of this code block more quickly. WDYT?+# Execute the check operation and process the results for msg in self._execute_and_parse(["check", "--config", config_file]): if msg.type == Type.CONNECTION_STATUS and msg.connectionStatus:
Line range hint
352-432: Refactored execution logic looks good, but consider adding error handling for specific exceptions.The refactoring of the execution logic into separate
_execute_and_parseand_executemethods looks great! It improves the separation of concerns and makes the code more modular. However, I have a few suggestions that might further enhance the robustness of the code:
In the
_execute_and_parsemethod, consider adding specific exception handling forjson.JSONDecodeErrorwhen parsing the JSON data. This could provide more informative error messages for malformed JSON output.In the
_executemethod, the genericExceptioncatch might be too broad. Would you consider catching more specific exceptions that might occur during execution? This could help in providing more targeted error messages and handling.The docstring for
_executementions "Locate the right venv", but this logic isn't visible in the method. Is this handled by theexecutor.executemethod? If so, maybe update the docstring to reflect this.WDYT about these suggestions? They might make the error handling more robust and the documentation more accurate.
Here's a suggestion for point 1:
try: message: AirbyteMessage = AirbyteMessage.model_validate_json(json_data=line) if progress_tracker and message.record: progress_tracker.tally_bytes_read( len(line), stream_name=message.record.stream, ) self._peek_airbyte_message(message) yield message -except Exception: +except json.JSONDecodeError: # This is likely a log message, so log it as INFO. self._print_info_message(line) +except Exception as e: + # Handle other unexpected exceptions + self._print_error_message(f"Unexpected error processing message: {str(e)}")airbyte/sources/base.py (2)
238-238: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The change from
_executeto_execute_and_parseis consistent with the previous modification. It's good to see this improvement applied consistently.Would it be helpful to add a brief comment explaining the purpose of
_execute_and_parse? Something like:# Execute the command and parse the output messages for msg in self._execute_and_parse(["spec"]):What do you think?
Line range hint
545-555: Great improvement! Docstring update needed?The change from
_executeto_execute_and_parseis consistent with the previous modifications. The addition of theprogress_trackerparameter is a nice enhancement for monitoring the execution progress.Should we update the method's docstring to include information about the new
progress_trackerparameter? Something like:def _read_with_catalog( self, catalog: ConfiguredAirbyteCatalog, progress_tracker: ProgressTracker, state: StateProviderBase | None = None, ) -> Generator[AirbyteMessage, None, None]: """Call read on the connector. Args: catalog: The configured catalog to use for reading. progress_tracker: A ProgressTracker instance for monitoring execution progress. state: Optional state provider for incremental reads. Returns: A generator yielding AirbyteMessages. """What do you think about adding this documentation?
airbyte/results.py
Outdated
| @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ | |||
| from airbyte.shared.state_providers import StateProviderBase | |||
| from airbyte.shared.state_writers import StateWriterBase | |||
| from airbyte.sources.base import Source | |||
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider removing the redundant import?
I noticed that AirbyteWriterInterface is already imported in the TYPE_CHECKING block on line 25. Do we need this additional import outside of TYPE_CHECKING? If not, maybe we could remove this line to avoid potential circular import issues and keep our imports clean. This would also address the Ruff warning about unused redefinition.
I see there was a previous comment about this as well. What are your thoughts on this? Is there a specific reason we need this import here that I might be missing?
If you agree, we could apply this change:
- from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterfaceWdyt?
Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| from airbyte.writers import AirbyteWriterInterface |
Tools
Ruff
30-30: Redefinition of unused
AirbyteWriterInterfacefrom line 22(F811)
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
IcebergSqlProcessorandIcebergCachefor enhanced SQL processing and caching functionalities.ParquetWriterfor writing data in Parquet format.Improvements
.gitignoreto exclude specific test artifacts.Documentation
Chores
polarsandboto3to support enhanced data processing capabilities.