-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
feat(ingest/sql): auto extract and use mode query user metadata #11307
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the 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 review |
Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
bit of confusion about extra_info and where it's used, but overall looks pretty reasonable
""" | ||
|
||
query_text: str | ||
user: Optional[Union[CorpUserUrn, CorpGroupUrn]] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is the idea that both preparsed queries and observed queries will match this interface?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, ultimately, that's the goal . Anything that has "query", "user" and "extra_info" can use this.
ObservedQuery and PreparsedQuery share these concepts but not named/typed similarly. Refactoring can be done to achieve this, however currently not done as add_observed_query path ultimately invokes add_preparsed_query path. So it suffices for only PreparsedQuery to follow this protocol.
@@ -736,6 +749,9 @@ def add_preparsed_query( | |||
session_has_temp_tables: bool = True, | |||
_is_internal: bool = False, | |||
) -> None: | |||
|
|||
self._tool_meta_extractor.extract_bi_metadata(parsed) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is a bit tricky - we only need it here, since observed query calls this?
imo it's a bit confusing because ObservedQuery also has extra_info, but that isn't copied over by add()
or add_observed_query
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right.
How about removing extra_info
entirely. I do not believe we are doing anything with user_via
just yet.
Also I believe we could place the line self._tool_meta_extractor.extract_bi_metadata(parsed)
in add()
right before invoking add_preparsed_query
or add_observed_query
instead of here and also refractor PreparsedQuery
/ ObservedQuery
to support base protocol - renaming of query_text
to query
, etc. What do you think? Would it be less confusing then ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added some refactoring + comment + passing extra_info to PreParsedQuery.
Checklist