fix(low-code): add wrong dynamic stream name type validation #305
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces a validation mechanism for dynamic stream names in the Airbyte CDK. A new check has been added to ensure that stream names are strings, raising a Changes
Possibly Related PRs
Suggested Labels
Suggested Reviewers
Hey there! 👋 I noticed you've added a neat validation check for stream names. Wdyt about potentially expanding this to include more comprehensive type checking or adding a more detailed error message that could help users diagnose the issue more quickly? Just a thought! 🤔 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (8)
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: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/manifest_declarative_source.py (1)
368-370: LGTM! Good defensive programming practice.Nice addition of type validation for stream names. This will help catch configuration issues early and provide clear error messages.
Hey, would you like to add a docstring to the
_dynamic_stream_configsmethod explaining the expected types for the parameters and return value? This could help future maintainers, wdyt? 🤔🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Linters
[warning] File needs formatting. Run 'ruff format' to fix formatting issues.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/auth/jwt.py(1 hunks)airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/manifest_declarative_source.py(1 hunks)unit_tests/sources/declarative/resolvers/test_http_components_resolver.py(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/auth/jwt.py
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Linters
airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/manifest_declarative_source.py
[warning] File needs formatting. Run 'ruff format' to fix formatting issues.
unit_tests/sources/declarative/resolvers/test_http_components_resolver.py
[warning] File needs formatting. Run 'ruff format' to fix formatting issues.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (7)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-pokeapi' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-the-guardian-api' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-shopify' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-hardcoded-records' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (Fast)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (All, Python 3.11, Ubuntu)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (All, Python 3.10, Ubuntu)
unit_tests/sources/declarative/resolvers/test_http_components_resolver.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
/autofix
|
|
/autofix
|
What
During the dynamic component resolving process, data mapping is not limited by field types. However, during instance creation, the 'name' field is strictly parsed as a string. Therefore, when we perform stream grouping here, we encounter a KeyError because the stream name in the manifest and the stream instance name might be of different types.
How
Add type validation for the stream name during components resolving process.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Tests