Skip to content

Conversation

@arezamoosavi
Copy link


^ 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.

@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg bot added area:providers provider:google Google (including GCP) related issues labels Feb 16, 2022
@boring-cyborg
Copy link

boring-cyborg bot commented Feb 16, 2022

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst)
Here are some useful points:

  • Pay attention to the quality of your code (flake8, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
  • In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
  • Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it’s a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
  • Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
  • Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
  • Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
    Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
    In case of doubts contact the developers at:
    Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
    Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

Copy link
Contributor

@lwyszomi lwyszomi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally look good but could you fix styling in your code.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same for this operator.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the same here.

Copy link
Author

@arezamoosavi arezamoosavi Mar 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I rebased the updates on dataproc and create this PR

Comment on lines 923 to 931
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it has been fixed in another PR so I rebased the updates on dataproc and create this PR

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You could simply the implementation in the operator by having hook as an instance attribute of the operator. Using the instance attribute, you wouldn't have to pass the object around and the other methods like _get_cluster() and _start_cluster() could be replaced by simply calling self.hook.get_cluster() and self.hook.start_cluster() directly.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done, I rebased the updates on dataproc and create this PR

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same comment here re: using an instance attribute for the hook object.

Comment on lines 984 to 985
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This (and other) formatting changes look unrelated, and the static checks in the CI probably won't like them. You could run these static checks locally though. Check out this guide for some pointers.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done, thanks for the feedback.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Feb 26, 2022

You need to rebase :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:providers provider:google Google (including GCP) related issues

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants