Feat: Add new PyAirbyte CLI for connector validation and benchmarking; add helper functions get_noop_destination() and get_benchmark_source()
#411
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces several modifications to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CLI
participant Dependencies
User->>CLI: Run command (pyairbyte or pyab)
CLI->>Dependencies: Load required libraries
Dependencies-->>CLI: Libraries loaded
CLI->>User: Execute command and return results
What do you think about this diagram? Does it capture the essence of the changes effectively? 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[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
pyproject.toml (1)
316-317: Looking good! New CLI commands added. 🎉The addition of
pyairbyteandpyabas CLI entry points is a nice touch. It provides both a full name and a shorthand version for users. Great job on implementing this feature!Quick question: Have you considered updating the project's documentation to reflect these new CLI commands? It could help users get up to speed quickly. Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
airbyte/destinations/util.py (1)
73-83: Nice addition! A few thoughts to consider:Hey there! I love the idea of adding a no-op destination for benchmarking. It's super useful! 🚀 I have a couple of suggestions that might make it even better. What do you think about these?
Maybe we could make it more flexible by allowing custom config options? Something like:
def get_noop_destination(config: dict[str, Any] | None = None) -> Destination: return get_destination( "destination-devnull-test", config=config or {}, docker_image=True, )This way, users can pass custom configs if needed. Wdyt?
For consistency with
get_destination, should we consider adding parameters likeversion,pip_url, etc.? It might not be necessary for a no-op destination, but it could make the API more uniform. Just a thought!Quick nitpick: there's an extra blank line (75) in the docstring. Maybe we could remove it to keep things tidy?
These are just ideas - feel free to take 'em or leave 'em! Let me know what you think. 😊
airbyte/cli.py (1)
99-99: Would it be helpful to add a docstring to theclifunction?Adding a docstring to the
clifunction can enhance code readability and provide clarity on its purpose. Wdyt?🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
99-99: Missing docstring in public function
(D103)
airbyte/sources/util.py (3)
128-129: Typo in the docstring.There's a grammatical error in the docstring: "If underscores are providing within a numeric a string, they will be ignored." It should be: "If underscores are provided within a numeric string, they will be ignored." Would you like to correct this typo?
151-152: Clarify thedocker_imageparameter.I noticed that
docker_imageis set toTrue, and there's a commented-out line specifying a specific Docker image"airbyte/source-e2e-test:latest". Would it be clearer to specify the Docker image directly instead of usingTrue? This might make the source definition more explicit. Wdyt?
164-166: Would you like to addget_benchmark_sourceto__all__for public access?Currently,
get_benchmark_sourceis not included in__all__, which means it won't be exported when the module is imported. If this function is intended to be part of the public API, adding it to__all__would make it accessible. Wdyt?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/destinations/util.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/sources/util.py (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
airbyte/cli.py
22-22: Unused function argument:
source(ARG001)
23-23: Unused function argument:
source_job(ARG001)
26-26: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
33-33: Unused function argument:
destination(ARG001)
36-36: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
99-99: Missing docstring in public function
(D103)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
airbyte/sources/util.py (1)
10-10: Import statement is appropriate.The import of
PyAirbyteInputErroris necessary for the exception handling introduced later in the code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
airbyte/cli.py (3)
20-29: Hey there! Mind if we add an issue link to that TODO?I noticed the TODO comment on line 26 is missing an issue link. Adding one could help track this pending implementation. Also, the
get_source(...)call on line 28 isn't doing anything at the moment. Shall we remove it for now? Wdyt?Would you like me to help create a GitHub issue for tracking this TODO?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
22-22: Unused function argument:
source(ARG001)
23-23: Unused function argument:
source_job(ARG001)
26-26: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
31-38: Another TODO without an issue link. Shall we add one?Similar to the previous function, the TODO comment on line 36 is missing an issue link. Also, the
get_destination(...)call on line 38 isn't doing anything at the moment. Should we remove it for now? Wdyt?I'd be happy to help create a GitHub issue for tracking this TODO as well. Let me know if you'd like that!
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
33-33: Unused function argument:
destination(ARG001)
36-36: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
47-95: Great implementation! How about a small tweak?The
benchmarkfunction looks well-structured and implements good error handling. I particularly like the clear docstring and the use of helper functions.One small suggestion: What do you think about adding a success message after running the benchmarks? Something like:
click.echo("Benchmarks completed successfully!")after line 95? This could provide a clear indication that the process has finished. Wdyt?
airbyte/destinations/util.py (1)
73-91: Nice addition of the no-op destination! 🎉This looks like a handy utility for performance benchmarking. A couple of thoughts:
The TODO on line 80 is missing an issue link. Wanna add one to keep track of replacing it with a 'devnull' destination?
The configuration is currently hardcoded. Do you think it might be useful to allow some customization, like the
max_entry_count? Maybe we could accept an optional parameter for this? What do you think?🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
80-80: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
pyproject.toml (5)
316-317: New CLI entry points addedCool addition of the new CLI entry points
pyairbyteandpyab! 🎉 This aligns nicely with the project's new description. Quick question though - is there any difference between these two commands, or are they just aliases? It might be helpful to add a comment explaining if there's any distinction, or if it's just for user convenience. What do you think about adding a quick note about this?
Line range hint
80-101: Pytest configuration enhancementsLove the additions to the pytest configuration! 🚀 The new markers will definitely help in organizing and running tests more efficiently. One small suggestion - it might be helpful to add a brief comment for each marker explaining when to use it, especially for the
super_slowandrequires_credsmarkers. This could help other contributors understand when to apply these markers to their tests. What do you think about adding some quick descriptions?
Line range hint
103-230: Comprehensive Ruff linter configurationWow, that's an impressive Ruff configuration! 🎨 You've really gone all out on code quality checks. I especially like the addition of complexity checks and docstring conventions. One small suggestion - for the ignored rules (especially ones like
FIX002for TODOs), maybe we could add a comment explaining why they're ignored and perhaps set a reminder to review them periodically? This could help us stay on top of our technical debt. What are your thoughts on this approach?
Line range hint
232-275: Strict MyPy configurationGreat job on tightening up the MyPy configuration! 🔍 The strict type checking will definitely help catch potential issues early. I noticed you've excluded some directories from type checking. It might be helpful to add a brief comment explaining why each is excluded (e.g., "third-party code", "generated files", etc.). This could help future maintainers understand the reasoning. What do you think about adding these explanations?
Line range hint
282-314: New Poetry tasks and CI configurationAwesome additions to the project tooling! 🛠️ The new Poetry tasks for testing, coverage, and docs generation will definitely streamline development. And the CI configuration looks solid. One small suggestion - it might be helpful to add a brief description of each task in a comment, especially for less obvious ones like
fix-unsafe. This could help new contributors quickly understand what each task does. What do you think about adding these descriptions?airbyte/sources/util.py (2)
7-7: Import 'InvalidOperation' from the 'decimal' moduleSince you're catching
InvalidOperationin your exception handling, you might need to import it from thedecimalmodule. Would you consider updating the import statement? Wdyt?Apply this diff to include
InvalidOperation:-from decimal import Decimal +from decimal import Decimal, InvalidOperation
129-130: Fix typo in the docstringThere's a minor typo in the docstring: "If underscores are providing within a numeric a string, they will be ignored." Should this be "If underscores are provided within a numeric string, they will be ignored"? Wdyt?
Apply this diff to correct the typo:
For example, `"5e6"` will generate 5 million records. If underscores are providing -within a numeric a string, they will be ignored. +within a numeric string, they will be ignored.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/destinations/util.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/sources/util.py (2 hunks)
- pyproject.toml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
airbyte/cli.py
22-22: Unused function argument:
source(ARG001)
23-23: Unused function argument:
source_job(ARG001)
26-26: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
33-33: Unused function argument:
destination(ARG001)
36-36: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
airbyte/destinations/util.py
80-80: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
airbyte/cli.py (2)
41-44: Looks good to me!The
validatefunction is simple and clear. It serves its purpose well as a placeholder or simple validation step.
98-108: Nicely done with the CLI structure!The
clifunction is well-organized and follows best practices for creating a command group with Click. The docstring is concise and informative, and the addition of commands is clear. Great job!pyproject.toml (2)
Line range hint
1-4: Clarify project name and description consistencyI noticed that while the project name is still "airbyte", the description has been updated to "PyAirbyte". This might cause some confusion. Should we consider updating the name to match the description for consistency? Or is there a specific reason for keeping them different? What do you think about aligning these, or adding a comment to explain the difference if intentional? 🤔
Line range hint
22-65: Acknowledge dependency updates and version constraintsGreat job updating the dependencies! 👍 I see you've added specific version constraints for many packages. This is generally good for reproducibility, but it might make it harder to get automatic updates in the future. Have you considered using version ranges (e.g.,
>=1.11.2,<2.0.0) for some of these to allow for minor updates while still maintaining compatibility? What's your thought process on this approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
airbyte/sources/__init__.py (1)
25-25: The all update looks good!Adding
get_benchmark_sourceto the all list makes it nicely accessible as part of the public API. Just a tiny suggestion - what do you think about grouping related functions together in the all list? Maybe we could moveget_benchmark_sourceright afterget_sourcefor better organization? Totally up to you though, wdyt?airbyte/destinations/__init__.py (1)
91-91: Looks good! How about updating the docs?Adding
get_noop_destinationto the__all__list is spot on, making it part of the public API. Nice job placing it in the "Methods" section!Since we're exposing a new method, should we consider adding a brief explanation or example of
get_noop_destinationin the module's docstring? It could help users understand its purpose and usage right off the bat. What do you think?airbyte/destinations/util.py (1)
73-91: Nice addition of the no-op destination! 👍The implementation looks good and serves the purpose of performance benchmarking without the overhead of writing to a real destination. A couple of suggestions:
The docstring is clear, but we could make it even better. What do you think about adding a brief example of how to use this function? Something like:
noop_dest = get_noop_destination() # Use noop_dest for benchmarkingThis could help users quickly understand how to utilize this feature. WDYT?
Regarding the TODO on line 80, shall we create an issue to track the replacement of 'destination-e2e-test' with a proper 'devnull' destination? This would ensure we don't forget about it in the future. Would you like me to help draft an issue for this?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
80-80: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
airbyte/cli.py (3)
26-26: Friendly reminder: Resolve TODO before mergingJust a friendly reminder to resolve the TODO comment before merging. This ensures all pending tasks are addressed.
146-146: Consider removing the commented-out lineThe commented-out line
# else: # Treat the destination as a name.seems unnecessary as the logic is clear without it. Would you consider removing it for cleaner code? Wdyt?
160-255: Great work on the benchmark command! A few suggestions:The benchmark command is well-implemented with comprehensive options. However, there are a few minor points to consider:
The function's docstring is missing descriptions for
config,job_file, andjob_dpathparameters. Would you like to add these for completeness?Some of the option help texts are quite long, causing line length issues. Consider breaking them into multiple lines for better readability. For example:
@click.option( "--source", type=str, help=( "The source name, with an optional version declaration. " "If a path is provided, the source will be loaded from the local path. " "If the string `'.'` is provided, the source will be loaded from the " "current working directory." ), )What do you think about these suggestions?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
164-164: Line too long (231 > 100)
(E501)
170-170: Line too long (367 > 100)
(E501)
175-175: Line too long (326 > 100)
(E501)
196-196: Missing argument descriptions in the docstring for
benchmark:config,job_dpath,job_file(D417)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/destinations/init.py (2 hunks)
- airbyte/destinations/util.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/sources/init.py (2 hunks)
- airbyte/sources/util.py (2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- airbyte/sources/util.py
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
airbyte/sources/__init__.py (1)
Learnt from: aaronsteers PR: airbytehq/PyAirbyte#411 File: airbyte/sources/util.py:121-123 Timestamp: 2024-10-06T17:35:27.056Z Learning: In `airbyte/sources/util.py`, the function `get_benchmark_source` is intended for benchmarking purposes in the current iteration. Future plans may include adding more generic functions like `get_dummy_source` or `get_mock_source` with broader functionality.
🪛 Ruff
airbyte/cli.py
164-164: Line too long (231 > 100)
(E501)
170-170: Line too long (367 > 100)
(E501)
175-175: Line too long (326 > 100)
(E501)
196-196: Missing argument descriptions in the docstring for
benchmark:config,job_dpath,job_file(D417)
airbyte/destinations/util.py
80-80: Missing issue link on the line following this TODO
(TD003)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
airbyte/sources/__init__.py (1)
13-16: LGTM! The new import looks good.The addition of
get_benchmark_sourcealigns nicely with its intended use for benchmarking. It's great to see this function being made available at the module level. Quick question though - any plans to add more generic functions likeget_dummy_sourceorget_mock_sourcein the future? Just curious about the roadmap, wdyt?airbyte/destinations/__init__.py (1)
82-82: LGTM! Mind sharing the purpose ofget_noop_destination?The addition of
get_noop_destinationto the imports looks good. It follows the existing import style consistently. I'm curious about its intended use - is it for testing purposes or as a placeholder? Could you elaborate a bit on its functionality, wdyt?airbyte/destinations/util.py (1)
94-97: LGTM! The__all__list update looks perfect.Good job on remembering to update the
__all__list to include the newget_noop_destinationfunction. This ensures that the function can be easily imported by users of the module. 👌airbyte/cli.py (5)
1-22: LGTM! Imports and type checking look good.The imports and type checking section is well-organized and comprehensive. It includes all necessary modules for the CLI implementation.
24-107: Great job on the _resolve_source_job function!The function is well-implemented, handling various input scenarios and including appropriate error handling. The docstring is clear and informative.
110-151: Excellent implementation of _resolve_destination_job!The function is well-structured, with appropriate error handling and clear documentation. It effectively handles both local and named destinations.
154-158: LGTM! Simple and effective validate command.The validate command is straightforward and does its job well.
258-268: Excellent CLI setup!The CLI group is well-defined, and the main execution is set up correctly. This provides a clean and organized structure for the PyAirbyte CLI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
airbyte/cli.py
237-237: Line too long (231 > 100)
(E501)
243-243: Line too long (367 > 100)
(E501)
248-248: Line too long (326 > 100)
(E501)
269-269: Missing argument descriptions in the docstring for
benchmark:config,job_dpath,job_file(D417)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
airbyte/cli.py (1)
1-341: Great job on implementing the PyAirbyte CLI!Overall, the implementation is solid and well-structured. The suggestions provided are mainly about enhancing error handling, improving consistency across functions, and refining documentation. These changes could make the CLI more robust and user-friendly.
Here's a summary of the main points:
- Consider adding more specific error handling for job file parsing in
_resolve_source_job.- Align error handling in
_resolve_destination_jobwith_resolve_source_jobfor consistency.- Enhance error messages for invalid connector names in the
validatefunction.- Break down long lines in click option help texts for better readability.
- Add missing argument descriptions to the
benchmarkfunction's docstring.These improvements will further elevate the quality of this well-implemented CLI. Great work! 👍
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
237-237: Line too long (231 > 100)
(E501)
243-243: Line too long (367 > 100)
(E501)
248-248: Line too long (326 > 100)
(E501)
269-269: Missing argument descriptions in the docstring for
benchmark:config,job_dpath,job_file(D417)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
airbyte/cli.py (7)
24-51: CLI guidance is comprehensive and helpful!The CLI_GUIDANCE constant provides clear instructions on using the PyAirbyte CLI, covering important aspects like configuration and secret management. Great job on making it user-friendly!
How about adding a brief example of using environment variables for secrets? Something like:
For example, you can set `export MY_SECRET=value` in your shell, then use `--config='{password: "SECRET:MY_SECRET"}'` in your command.This could make it even clearer for users. Wdyt?
54-82: _resolve_config function looks good, but could we improve file handling?The function does a great job handling both inline YAML and file-based configurations, and I like how it injects secrets. However, I noticed that it uses
json.loadsfor all file types. This might not work correctly for YAML files.How about updating the file reading logic to handle both JSON and YAML files? Something like this:
if config_path.suffix.lower() in ('.yaml', '.yml'): config_dict = yaml.safe_load(config_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8")) else: config_dict = json.loads(config_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))This way, we can support both file types seamlessly. Wdyt?
85-134: _resolve_source_job function is well-structured, but could we enhance the error handling?I really like how this function handles various input scenarios and processes stream selection. Great job on that! However, I noticed that the error message for an invalid source name could be more informative.
What if we updated the error message to explicitly mention the expected format? Something like:
if not source or not source.startswith("source-"): raise PyAirbyteInputError( message="Expected a source name starting with 'source-' or a path to executable.", input_value=source, )This could help users understand the expected input format more quickly. What do you think?
137-176: _resolve_destination_job function looks good, but could we align the error handling with _resolve_source_job?The structure of this function nicely mirrors _resolve_source_job, which is great for consistency! However, I noticed that we could improve the error handling for invalid destination names, similar to what we discussed for the source function.
How about adding a check for the destination name format? Something like:
if not destination or not destination.startswith("destination-"): raise PyAirbyteInputError( message="Expected a destination name starting with 'destination-' or a path to executable.", input_value=destination, )This would make the error handling consistent between source and destination functions. What do you think?
179-257: validate command is well-structured, but could we enhance the error message?I really like how this command handles different input scenarios and performs both spec and config checks. Great job on that! However, I noticed that we could make the error message for invalid connector names more informative.
What if we updated the error message to include the actual input value? Something like:
if not connector_name.startswith("source-") and not connector_name.startswith("destination-"): raise PyAirbyteInputError( message=f"Expected a connector name starting with 'source-' or 'destination-', but received: {connector_name}", input_value=connector, )This could help users quickly identify what went wrong with their input. What do you think?
259-296: benchmark command options look great, but could we improve readability?The options for the benchmark command are well-defined, and I particularly like the use of scientific notation for num_records. However, I noticed that some of the help texts are quite long, which might affect readability in the terminal.
How about breaking down the longer help texts into multiple lines? For example:
@click.option( "--num-records", type=str, default="5e5", help=( "The number of records to generate for the benchmark. " "Ignored if a source is provided. You can specify the number " "of records using scientific notation. For example, `5e6` will " "generate 5 million records. By default, 500,000 records will " "be generated (`5e5` records). If underscores are provided within " "a numeric string, they will be ignored." ), )This could make the help text more readable when displayed in the terminal. What do you think?
297-343: benchmark function looks solid, but could we enhance the docstring?The benchmark function is well-structured and handles both source and destination benchmarking nicely. Great job on that! However, I noticed that the docstring could be more detailed about the function parameters.
How about expanding the docstring to include parameter descriptions? Something like:
def benchmark( source: str | None = None, num_records: int | str = "5e5", # 500,000 records destination: str | None = None, config: str | None = None, ) -> None: """Run benchmarks. Args: source: The source name, with an optional version declaration. If a path is provided, the source will be loaded from the local path. If the string `'.'` is provided, the source will be loaded from the current working directory. num_records: The number of records to generate for the benchmark. Ignored if a source is provided. You can specify the number of records to generate using scientific notation. For example, `"5e6"` will generate 5 million records. By default, 500,000 records will be generated ("5e5" records). destination: The destination name, with an optional version declaration. If a path is provided, the destination will be loaded from the local path. If the string `'.'` is provided, the destination will be loaded from the current working directory. config: The path to a configuration file for the named source or destination. You can provide either a source or a destination, but not both. If a destination is being benchmarked, you can use `num_records` to specify the number of records to generate for the benchmark. If a source is being benchmarked, you can provide a configuration file to run the source job. """This could make the function's usage clearer for other developers. What do you think?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
airbyte/cli.py (3)
1-22: Imports and initial setup look good!The imports and initial setup are well-organized and follow good practices. The use of TYPE_CHECKING for conditional imports is particularly noteworthy. Keep up the good work!
346-353: CLI setup looks great!The cli function and command group are well-structured and follow click's conventions nicely. Adding the validate and benchmark commands to the group is done cleanly. This setup provides a solid foundation for the PyAirbyte CLI. Great job!
355-356: Main block is spot on!The main block follows the standard pattern for CLI applications, ensuring that the cli function is only called when the script is run directly. This is a clean and effective way to set up the entry point for your CLI. Well done!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
airbyte/cli.py (1)
85-134: Shall we make the error message formatting consistent?The
_resolve_source_jobfunction looks great overall! It handles different input types and includes proper error handling. However, I noticed a small inconsistency in error message formatting. In one case, we include the input value in the error, while in another, we don't. How about making this consistent? Wdyt?if not source_executable.exists(): raise PyAirbyteInputError( message=f"Source executable not found: {source}", input_value=source, )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
- airbyte/destinations/util.py (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- airbyte/destinations/util.py
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
airbyte/cli.py (2)
1-51: LGTM! The imports and CLI guidance look great.The imports are well-organized, and the
CLI_GUIDANCEconstant provides comprehensive instructions for users. This is a good practice for improving the user experience.
349-359: LGTM! The CLI setup looks great.The CLI group definition and command additions are concise and follow best practices for setting up a CLI using Click. The script is also correctly set up to be executed directly when run as the main module.
aaronsteers
changed the title
aaronsteers
changed the title
get_noop_destination() and get_benchmark_source()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
airbyte/__init__.py (1)
128-128: Circular import prevention: cli module commented outI see you've commented out the 'cli' import and removed it from all to prevent a circular import. Nice catch! 🕵️♂️ This is a solid approach to breaking circular dependencies.
Just wondering, have you considered alternative ways to structure the imports to avoid this issue altogether? Maybe we could refactor the 'cli' module to reduce its dependencies? Or perhaps move the circular dependency to a third module? What do you think? 🤔
Also, it might be helpful to add a comment explaining why this import is commented out, just to prevent any future confusion. Something like:
# cli import commented out to prevent circular import # TODO: Consider refactoring to eliminate this circular dependencyWdyt? 🙂
Also applies to: 160-160
airbyte/cli.py (1)
79-79: How about adding an extra blank line here?It looks like we're missing a blank line before the
_resolve_configfunction. Adding an extra blank line would improve readability and adhere to PEP 8 style guidelines. Wdyt?+ def _resolve_config( config: str, ) -> dict[str, Any]:🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
79-79: Expected 2 blank lines, found 1
Add missing blank line(s)
(E302)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- airbyte/init.py (2 hunks)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
airbyte/cli.py
79-79: Expected 2 blank lines, found 1
Add missing blank line(s)
(E302)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
examples/run_perf_test_reads.py (1)
Line range hint
237-246: Is the help text for the--sourceargument correct?It seems the help text for the
--sourceargument says "The cache type to use," which might be a copy-paste error. Should it be updated to accurately describe the--sourceoptions? WDYT?Apply this diff to correct the help text:
parser.add_argument( "--source", type=str, - help=( - "The cache type to use. The `e2e` source is recommended when Docker is available, " - "while the `faker` source runs natively in Python. The 'hardcoded' source is " - "similar to the 'e2e' source, but written in Python." - ), + help=( + "The source to use. The `e2e` source is recommended when Docker is available, " + "the `benchmark` source provides predefined benchmark data, " + "the `faker` source runs natively in Python, and the 'hardcoded' source is " + "similar to the 'e2e' source but implemented in Python." + ), choices=[ "benchmark", "e2e", "hardcoded", "faker", ], default="hardcoded", )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
- examples/run_perf_test_reads.py (6 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
examples/run_perf_test_reads.py (1)
Pattern
examples/*: These scripts are intended for demonstration purposes only. They are not meant to represent production code. For these scripts, you should prefer brevity over robust error handling and handling of edge cases. These are demos - which should be as simple as possible to handle the 'blessed' use cases.
🔇 Additional comments (7)
airbyte/cli.py (4)
1-77: LGTM! Comprehensive docstring and CLI guidance.The module docstring and CLI guidance provide clear and detailed instructions on how to use the PyAirbyte CLI. The examples and best practices for handling secrets are particularly helpful. Great job on making the CLI user-friendly!
382-389: LGTM! Well-structured CLI command group.The
clifunction and command group are implemented correctly. This structure allows for easy addition of new commands in the future, which is great for maintainability and extensibility. Nice job on setting up a scalable CLI structure!
391-392: LGTM! Standard main block implementation.The main block correctly calls the
clifunction when the script is run directly. This is the standard and proper way to implement a CLI application in Python. Good job!
1-392: Excellent implementation of the PyAirbyte CLI!Overall, this is a very well-structured and comprehensive implementation of the PyAirbyte CLI. Here are some key strengths:
- Clear and detailed docstrings and CLI guidance.
- Proper use of Click for CLI implementation, making the code clean and easy to understand.
- Comprehensive error handling and input validation throughout the code.
- Modular design with helper functions for configuration resolution and job setup.
- Flexible handling of both local executables and named connectors.
The suggestions provided earlier are minor improvements to an already solid implementation. Great job on creating a user-friendly and robust CLI for PyAirbyte!
examples/run_perf_test_reads.py (3)
5-14: Documentation updates look goodThe updated docstrings accurately reflect the changes to the
-nargument and provide clear examples.
171-173: Inclusion of 'e2e' in destination types looks goodIncluding 'e2e' in the destination types and returning a no-operation destination is appropriate.
183-185:⚠️ Potential issueConsider validating the
-nargument and handling invalid inputsIn the
mainfunction, convertingnto an integer without handling exceptions may cause the script to exit unexpectedly if an invalid value is provided. Would you consider adding error handling or input validation to ensure the user is informed when an invalid-nvalue is entered? WDYT?Apply this diff to add error handling:
) -> None: - num_records = int(Decimal(n)) + try: + num_records = int(Decimal(n)) + except (ArithmeticError, ValueError): + print(f"Invalid number of records provided: {n}") + sys.exit(1)Likely invalid or redundant comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- airbyte/cli.py (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
airbyte/cli.py (2)
401-411: LGTM! Well-structured CLI setup.The main CLI group is defined correctly, and the commands are added properly. The file is also set up to be executed directly, which is great for ease of use. Nice work on structuring the CLI!
1-411: Great job on implementing the PyAirbyte CLI!Overall, this is a well-structured and comprehensive implementation of the PyAirbyte CLI. The code is clean, well-documented, and follows good practices. The error handling is generally good, with just a couple of minor suggestions for improvement.
Some highlights:
- Clear and helpful docstrings and comments throughout the file.
- Good separation of concerns with helper functions for config resolution and job setup.
- Proper use of type hints and error handling.
The suggestions provided are minor and aimed at enhancing the robustness of the CLI. Great work on this implementation!
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
pyairbyteandpyab.validateandbenchmarkcommands.Dependency Updates
Configuration Enhancements