Create Auto ML operators for Vertex AI service #21470
Conversation
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:providers
kind:documentation
provider:google
MaksYermak
changed the title
MaksYermak
force-pushed
the
auto-ml-vertex-ai-operators
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4a541c5 to
809af22
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment as in #21267 (comment) , let's try to be consistent
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I remember that some time ago Google recommended to avoid such interfaces because there was a lot of issues like "can we add foo_bar argument to operator XYZ". Instead it was suggested that an operator should accept a "body" - an object that is accepted by the underlying API.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am fine with both approaches as long as Google want to maintain it ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MaksYermak Is this consistent with approach that we have in other google operators?
I think it should be good as long as we consistent everywhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kosteev Yes it is consistent. We have the same approach in other google operators.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MaksYermak @kosteev it's a matter of definition: For example Google AutoML operators accept model argument instead of particular elements of model as we do here.
Some time ago we had a move that resulted in refactoring Dataproc and BigQuery (as well others) operators to follow "single input" approach because it was considered more generic and easier to follow. Also it is more inline with Google change between approach in v1 and v2 clients: https://googleapis.dev/python/dataproc/latest/UPGRADING.html#method-calls
potiuk
left a comment
potiuk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am fine to go with it. this looks like a nicely generated piece of code, doesn't it?
|
Looks like there are some import errors though :( |
github-actions
bot
added
the
okay to merge
|
The PR is likely OK to be merged with just subset of tests for default Python and Database versions without running the full matrix of tests, because it does not modify the core of Airflow. If the committers decide that the full tests matrix is needed, they will add the label 'full tests needed'. Then you should rebase to the latest main or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease. |
MaksYermak
force-pushed
the
auto-ml-vertex-ai-operators
branch
from
809af22 to
1f0ac36
Compare
@potiuk @turbaszek I have updated links for Vertex AI with new approach. One more thing I with @lwyszomi and @wojsamjan have decided to create a separate package for links. @potiuk @turbaszek what do you think about it? |
MaksYermak
force-pushed
the
auto-ml-vertex-ai-operators
branch
from
1f0ac36 to
ecdfa1d
Compare
MaksYermak
force-pushed
the
auto-ml-vertex-ai-operators
branch
from
ecdfa1d to
3e8184f
Compare
| should have a transformation. If an input column has no transformations on it, such a column is | ||
| ignored by the training, except for the targetColumn, which should have no transformations | ||
| defined on. Only one of column_transformations or column_specs should be passed. Consider using | ||
| column_specs as column_transformations will be deprecated eventually. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@MaksYermak can you please clarify this deprecation eventually?
This is the first time we added this operator why do we warn about deprecation (and if there is something that user needs to be aware of why do we warn only in docstring?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eladkal thank you for your comment. It is my mistake I haven´t noticed that this parameter is deprecated in the google-cloud-aiplatform library. I will create PR with deprecation warning for this parameter.
6 participants
Create operators for working with Auto ML for Vertex AI service. Includes operators, hooks, example dags, tests and docs.
Co-authored-by: Wojciech Januszek januszek@google.com
Co-authored-by: Lukasz Wyszomirski wyszomirski@google.com
Co-authored-by: Maksim Yermakou maksimy@google.com
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code change, 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 UPDATING.md.