Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add deferrable mode to BeamRunPythonPipelineOperator - #31471
Conversation
6103229 to
f57cc11CompareVladaZakharova
commented
May 29, 2023
Hi @potiuk ! |
f57cc11 to
3094bceComparepotiuk
commented
Jun 8, 2023
Some docstrings need fixing as we already added D400 check for docstrings. |
3094bce to
606047dCompareVladaZakharova
commented
Jun 12, 2023
@potiuk |
BeamRunPythonPipelineOperatorpotiuk
commented
Jul 9, 2023
There is one more "default deferrable" to fix. |
7b217c9 to
d2f32d8Compared2f32d8 to
6c49c4eCompare6c49c4e to
c6c1852CompareVladaZakharova
commented
Jul 12, 2023
@potiuk |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
VladaZakharova
commented
Jul 13, 2023
@potiuk@pankajastro |
pankajastro
commented
Jul 13, 2023
Hi just posted one small question otherwise looks good, |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
9358e0e to
5f2ad03CompareVladaZakharova
commented
Jul 13, 2023
@pankajastro |
This PR adds the ability to start BeamRunPythonOperator asynchronously using deferrable mode. The documentation was updated with the description of how to work with deferrable parameter.
Additionally, the existing implementation was fixed:
^ 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.