Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP][Flyteadmin] Add variablemap in dataproxy for dataclass/pydantic #6136

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mao3267
Copy link
Contributor

@mao3267 mao3267 commented Jan 4, 2025

Current Problem

There are two main components to manage when retrieving the variable_map in the Dataproxy's GetData function: GetDataFromNodeExecution and GetDataFromTaskExecution. Since the variable_map resides in the TaskClosure, it is logical to retrieve it from the Task Repository using the Task's identification details (ID, project, domain, and version).

However, I am unable to determine how to access the output from node execution. Is there a way to retrieve the TaskClosure (or Task) directly from the NodeExecution?

Tracking issue

#6081

Why are the changes needed?

While the task input/output is represented as a dataclass or Pydantic model, using the get function to fetch the FlyteRemote execution output will fail due to the absence of the variable_map information. To address this issue, we aim to provide the input/output variable_map through the Dataproxy as a solution.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

  1. Provide variable_map information in GetData from dataproxy service.
  2. Unit tests will be added later.

How was this patch tested?

TODO

Setup process

git clone https://github.com/flyteorg/flyte.git
gh pr checkout 

Screenshots

TODO

Check all the applicable boxes

  • I updated the documentation accordingly.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

flyteorg/flytekit#3031

Docs link

TODO

Signed-off-by: mao3267 <chenvincent610@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: mao3267 <chenvincent610@gmail.com>
@flyte-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Code Review Agent Run Status

  • Limitations and other issues: ❌ Failure - The AI Code Review Agent skipped reviewing this change because it is configured to exclude certain pull requests based on the source/target branch or the pull request status. You can change the settings here, or contact the agent instance creator at eduardo@union.ai.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 33.22%. Comparing base (fd9a378) to head (07878e0).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...eidl/gen/pb-go/flyteidl/admin/node_execution.pb.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
...eidl/gen/pb-go/flyteidl/admin/task_execution.pb.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
...lyteidl/gen/pb-go/flyteidl/service/dataproxy.pb.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6136      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   37.01%   33.22%   -3.80%     
==========================================
  Files        1318     1020     -298     
  Lines      132525   108613   -23912     
==========================================
- Hits        49058    36084   -12974     
+ Misses      79222    69332    -9890     
+ Partials     4245     3197    -1048     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests-datacatalog 51.58% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteadmin ?
unittests-flytecopilot 30.99% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytectl 62.29% <ø> (-0.05%) ⬇️
unittests-flyteidl 7.23% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unittests-flyteplugins 53.85% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unittests-flytepropeller 42.64% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
unittests-flytestdlib 55.17% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: In progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants