Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: fix table post/put api bug #172

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 27, 2021

Conversation

tianruzhou-db
Copy link
Contributor

@tianruzhou-db tianruzhou-db commented Jan 22, 2021

Signed-off-by: tianru zhou [email protected]

Summary of Changes

fix table post/put api bugs

  • old api definition contains openapi 2 syntax(put request body within parameters part), which causes weird exception: components within template.yml can't be found.

  • data within request body for table/user put/post should be a list, current parser syntax doesn't work correctly for lists.

Related FE PR: amundsen-io/amundsenfrontendlibrary#883

Tests

  • pass all unit tests locally
  • manual end-to-end test for table put/post api

Documentation

What documentation did you add or modify and why? Add any relevant links then remove this line

CheckList

Make sure you have checked all steps below to ensure a timely review.

  • PR title addresses the issue accurately and concisely. Example: "Updates the version of Flask to v1.0.2"
  • PR includes a summary of changes.
  • PR adds unit tests, updates existing unit tests, OR documents why no test additions or modifications are needed.
  • In case of new functionality, my PR adds documentation that describes how to use it.
    • All the public functions and the classes in the PR contain docstrings that explain what it does
  • PR passes make test

Signed-off-by: tianru zhou <[email protected]>
@feng-tao
Copy link
Member

could you post the frontend PR here as well? Just for reference this will fix the issue when adding new doesn't trigger / update the search index.

Copy link
Member

@feng-tao feng-tao left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

add a few nits, let me know what you think, great stuff. This fixes a long time bug (dated back 2018...)

data = self.schema(many=True, strict=False).loads(args.get('data')).data
table_dict_list = []
for table_str in args.get('data'):
table_dict_list.append(literal_eval(table_str))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is table_str actually a tablefields object? the naming is a bit confusing. also we typically don't put type behind the variable for naming.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what are we using literal_eval here for?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

table_str is a string representation of dict, like '{"key1": val1, "key2": val2}'
literal_eval will concert the table_str into a dict first, or json.dumps will dump a list of string instead of a list of dict

data = self.schema(many=True, strict=False).loads(args.get('data')).data
table_dict_list = []
for table_str in args.get('data'):
table_dict_list.append(literal_eval(table_str))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you could also simplify the above as table_objs = [literal_eval(table_str) for table_str in args.get('data')].

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does the endpoint work for user,table,dashboard as well? would be good to add a todo for things that are missing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For user, we already have a different endpoint, for dashboard, we need to think about it, not sure whether the fields are the same as table, if not, we can also create a new one.

name: str
key: str
id: str
database: Optional[str] = None
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why are we changing them to optional str?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

some fields may be None in elasticsearch, for these fields, required str will fail this method: data = self.schema(many=True, strict=False).loads(args.get('data')).data. But yeah, in our use case, I think database, cluster, schema, table are required

tags: List[Tag]
badges: List[Tag]
tags: List[Tag] = []
badges: List[Tag] = []
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

typically we put None for list default value (e.g https://docs.python-guide.org/writing/gotchas/#mutable-default-arguments)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sounds good, I just wanted to be consistent with original code

# The following properties are lightly-transformed properties from the normal table object:
column_names: List[str]
column_names: List[str] = []
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same for other list

column_descriptions: List[str] = []
programmatic_descriptions: List[str] = []
# The following are search-only properties:
total_usage: int = 0
schema_description: Optional[str] = attr.ib(default=None)

def get_id(self) -> str:
# uses the table key as the document id in ES
return self.key
return self.id
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this id is same as table key or the ES document id?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ES document id is always root of truth, but we can also use key as the ES document id (assuming key is unique)

def get_attrs_dict(self) -> dict:
attrs_dict = self.__dict__.copy()
attrs_dict['tags'] = [str(tag) for tag in self.tags]
attrs_dict['badges'] = [str(tag) for tag in self.badges]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[str(badge) for badge in self.badges] ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sounds good.

@@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ def _get_search_result(self, page_index: int,

for hit in response:
try:
es_metadata = hit.__dict__.get('meta', {})
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it has been a while, could you add an example on the return value of hit.__dict__ for docstring ? is it getting the existing ES document?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sure, will do.
yes, it's getting the existing ES documnet.

@@ -124,6 +126,7 @@ def _get_search_result(self, page_index: int,
for attr, val in es_payload.items():
if attr in model.get_attrs():
result[attr] = self._get_instance(attr=attr, val=val)
result['id'] = self._get_instance(attr='id', val=es_metadata['id'])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the id is ES document id?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ def test_post(self, get_proxy: MagicMock, RequestParser: MagicMock) -> None:
@patch('search_service.api.document.get_proxy_client')
def test_put(self, get_proxy: MagicMock, RequestParser: MagicMock) -> None:
mock_proxy = get_proxy.return_value = Mock()
RequestParser().parse_args.return_value = dict(data='{}', index='fake_index')
RequestParser().parse_args.return_value = dict(data=[], index='fake_index')
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could you add a unit test to update multiple values as it is broken before?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good, will do.

@tianruzhou-db
Copy link
Contributor Author

could you post the frontend PR here as well? Just for reference this will fix the issue when adding new doesn't trigger / update the search index.

Please refer to Summary of Changes

Signed-off-by: tianru zhou <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: tianru zhou <[email protected]>
@feng-tao feng-tao merged commit 38bccba into amundsen-io:master Jan 27, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants