Skip to content

Sagemaker Operator Character limit fix #45551

Merged
ferruzzi merged 15 commits into
apache:mainfrom
dirkrkotzeml:main
Jan 15, 2025
Merged

Sagemaker Operator Character limit fix #45551
ferruzzi merged 15 commits into
apache:mainfrom
dirkrkotzeml:main

Conversation

@dirkrkotzeml

@dirkrkotzeml dirkrkotzeml commented Jan 10, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

… SageMaker 64 character length constraint

SageMakerProcessingJobs have a hard limit of 64 characters for the ProcessingJobName.
In the SageMakerBaseOperator there is a check for uniqueness for the name.
In the case that a name is not unique it adds a timestamp to prevent a potential collision, however there is no check to prevent the updated - from exceeding 64 characters. This causes the creation of the SageMakerProcessingJob to fail.

In the SageMaker Pipelines SDK they truncate the base name before adding the timestamp, therefor we took a similar approach for consistency purposes.

Closes: #45550

@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg Bot added area:providers provider:amazon AWS/Amazon - related issues labels Jan 10, 2025
@boring-cyborg

boring-cyborg Bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/README.rst)
Here are some useful points:

  • Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
  • In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
  • Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
  • Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
  • Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
  • Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
  • Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
    Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
    In case of doubts contact the developers at:
    Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
    Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

@eladkal eladkal requested review from ferruzzi and vincbeck January 11, 2025 16:11

@vincbeck vincbeck left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you add a unit test to cover that?

Comment thread providers/src/airflow/providers/amazon/aws/operators/sagemaker.py Outdated
@dirkrkotzeml

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Could you add a unit test to cover that?

@ferruzzi @vincbeck We have updated the prior unit tests and added two of our own, the provider tests all pass.

Just a small note the previous mock for time_ns was using an incorrect format that the time_ns() function would not return.
We updated the unit tests to use a representative integer for the tests.

In our updated function we limit the returned timestamp to 10 characters to capture only the date time up to the seconds as this is all that is needed.

@Rudolf07688

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dirkrkotzeml @eladkal @o-nikolas
Unit tests passing after latest commit.

Screenshot 2025-01-14 at 15 07 12

@Rudolf07688 Rudolf07688 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks exactly like how it is done on the SageMaker Pipelines SDK. Happy with it.

@ferruzzi

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looks like you just need to run your static checks. running breeze static-checks should fix the formatting issues that the CI is crying about.

@Rudolf07688

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looks like you just need to run your static checks. running breeze static-checks should fix the formatting issues that the CI is crying about.

Ran the checks now and pushed changes. Thanks @ferruzzi

@ferruzzi ferruzzi left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Congrats on your first PR

@ferruzzi ferruzzi merged commit 6ba36fd into apache:main Jan 15, 2025
@boring-cyborg

boring-cyborg Bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request! You are invited to check our Issue Tracker for additional contributions.

HariGS-DB pushed a commit to HariGS-DB/airflow that referenced this pull request Jan 16, 2025
Co-authored-by: Dirk Kotze <dirk.kotze@spatialedge.ai>
Co-authored-by: Rudolf Luttich <rudolf@Rudolfs-MBP.localdomain>
Co-authored-by: Rudolf07688 <43000341+Rudolf07688@users.noreply.github.com>
dauinh pushed a commit to dauinh/airflow that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2025
Co-authored-by: Dirk Kotze <dirk.kotze@spatialedge.ai>
Co-authored-by: Rudolf Luttich <rudolf@Rudolfs-MBP.localdomain>
Co-authored-by: Rudolf07688 <43000341+Rudolf07688@users.noreply.github.com>
got686-yandex pushed a commit to got686-yandex/airflow that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
Co-authored-by: Dirk Kotze <dirk.kotze@spatialedge.ai>
Co-authored-by: Rudolf Luttich <rudolf@Rudolfs-MBP.localdomain>
Co-authored-by: Rudolf07688 <43000341+Rudolf07688@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:providers provider:amazon AWS/Amazon - related issues

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

SageMakerBaseOperator character limit bug

5 participants