fix assets with the same backfill policy not being materialized together #21880
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @jamiedemaria and the rest of your teammates on |
|
@sryza since Claire is out until tomorrow, could you take a look at this? I'd like to get the fix into this week's release if possible |
sryza
reviewed
May 20, 2024
| asset_key | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| for backfill_policy, aks in asset_keys_by_backfill_policy.items(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to do all the grouping in one place? I.e. assets_to_reconcile_by_partitions_def_partition_keys_backfill_policy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah good point - done!
jamiedemaria
force-pushed
the
jamie/backfil-with-multiple-backfill-policies
branch
from
cae3fe9
to
9db6bc7
Compare
sryza
approved these changes
May 21, 2024
| Tuple[Optional[PartitionsDefinition], Optional[FrozenSet[str]]], Set[AssetKey] | ||
| assets_to_reconcile_by_partitions_def_partition_keys_backfill_policy: Mapping[ | ||
| Tuple[Optional[PartitionsDefinition], Optional[FrozenSet[str]], Optional[BackfillPolicy]], | ||
| Set[AssetKey], | ||
| ] = defaultdict(set) | ||
|
|
||
| # here we are grouping assets by their partitions def and partition keys selected. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update this comment or remove it?
jamiedemaria
force-pushed
the
jamie/backfil-with-multiple-backfill-policies
branch
from
9db6bc7
to
d6e471f
Compare
nikomancy
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 22, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary & Motivation
A user reported an issue where a backfill requested a parent and child asset partitions in separate runs, causing the child asset partition to fail since the parent had not yet been materialized. After some investigation, it looks like if multiple assets have the same partitions definition, different backfill policies, and were going to be requested in one tick of the backfill daemon, we requested each asset individually instead of grouping by backfill policy. This causes parent-child asset pairs that were going to be materialized together by that tick to be requested in different runs.
This PR changes the behavior so that we group by backfill policy. I think this change should be ok because we already know the assets have the same partitions def and requested partitions, and we know that any parent/child assets must have the same backfill definition from the
can_run_with_parentcheck earlier in the daemon loopHow I Tested These Changes
new unit test. It failed before making the code changed (there were 3 run requests instead of 2) and passes now