Remove worrying log message about redaction caused by OpenLineage plugin #31149
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The current published plugin calls `_redact_all` directly, so when we
added the `max_depth` parameter in 2.6 (precisely so it didn't need to
call this private function directly!) we broke that.
This change leads to some worrying logs appearing in task logs for
anyone with the plugin installed:
```
[2023-05-05, 11:56:17 BST] {utils.py:490} WARNING - Unable to redact []Error was: TypeError: SecretsMasker._redact_all() missing 1 required positional argument: 'max_depth'
[2023-05-05, 11:56:17 BST] {utils.py:490} WARNING - Unable to redact []Error was: TypeError: SecretsMasker._redact_all() missing 1 required positional argument: 'max_depth'
[2023-05-05, 11:56:17 BST] {utils.py:490} WARNING - Unable to redact NoneError was: TypeError: SecretsMasker._redact_all() missing 1 required positional argument: 'max_depth'
```
This patch makes that previous change backwards compatible for that with
no change in behaviour for new code.
pankajkoti
approved these changes
May 9, 2023
eladkal
approved these changes
May 9, 2023
eladkal
approved these changes
May 9, 2023
uranusjr
approved these changes
May 9, 2023
|
Good call @uranusjr -- added a TODO to look at it in "early 2024". |
|
Oops - Github issue means that my update commit didn't "take" (GH didn't see the push). Not the end of the world here. |
ephraimbuddy
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2023
…in (#31149) The current published plugin calls `_redact_all` directly, so when we added the `max_depth` parameter in 2.6 (precisely so it didn't need to call this private function directly!) we broke that. This change leads to some worrying logs appearing in task logs for anyone with the plugin installed: ``` [2023-05-05, 11:56:17 BST] {utils.py:490} WARNING - Unable to redact []Error was: TypeError: SecretsMasker._redact_all() missing 1 required positional argument: 'max_depth' [2023-05-05, 11:56:17 BST] {utils.py:490} WARNING - Unable to redact []Error was: TypeError: SecretsMasker._redact_all() missing 1 required positional argument: 'max_depth' [2023-05-05, 11:56:17 BST] {utils.py:490} WARNING - Unable to redact NoneError was: TypeError: SecretsMasker._redact_all() missing 1 required positional argument: 'max_depth' ``` This patch makes that previous change backwards compatible for that with no change in behaviour for new code. (cherry picked from commit 25e3159)
34 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current published plugin calls
_redact_alldirectly, so when weadded the
max_depthparameter in 2.6 (precisely so it didn't need tocall this private function directly!) we broke that.
This change leads to some worrying logs appearing in task logs for
anyone with the plugin installed:
This patch makes that previous change backwards compatible for that with
no change in behaviour for new code.
^ 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.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.