Skip to content

Conversation

@ferruzzi
Copy link
Contributor

@ferruzzi ferruzzi commented May 8, 2023

This reverts commit fc41661.

The system test fails because it is missing the required parameter file_size, and once that is added, it fails because the table name is being passed where the API is expecting the ARN here

@o-nikolas o-nikolas merged commit dff7e0d into apache:main May 8, 2023
@utkarsharma2
Copy link
Contributor

utkarsharma2 commented May 9, 2023

@ferruzzi @o-nikolas @vincbeck Would it make sense to introduce a new parameter for table ARN?

@ferruzzi
Copy link
Contributor Author

ferruzzi commented May 9, 2023

If you already have the name you could look up the ARN using describe_table on the client or Table.table_arn on the resource, no need to pass both IMHO.

Mayyybe (let's see how others feel about this) add a cached property (like hook on L 136) to DynamoDBToS3Operator for table_arn that just returns client.describe_table(self.table_name)['Table']['TableArn']. That way it's only one extra API call and gets stored?

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants