[WIP] Adding capabilities to specify schema for RedshiftSource - #1772
[WIP] Adding capabilities to specify schema for RedshiftSource#1772blvp wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: blvp The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Hi @blvp. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a feast-dev member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
Created this Draft PR to start triggering integration tests. Going to also provide additional unit tests and integration tests with that edge case. |
|
This is great @blvp! |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1772 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 84.71% 64.19% -20.53%
===========================================
Files 86 83 -3
Lines 6308 6261 -47
===========================================
- Hits 5344 4019 -1325
- Misses 964 2242 +1278
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| temp_schema_name: StrictStr | ||
| """ Redshift schema name to offload temporary tables """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this make this confguration field mandatory? Should we make it optional instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think some default should be defined explicitly, but I agree there isn't any reason to force user to specify that
|
Yeah makes sense. Original issue was fixed already. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This feature is required to eliminate undefined behaviour where users can specify a table which represented in multiple schemas.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1767
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: