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

🐛 fix: correct language tag for low-code based connector #29216

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sajarin
Copy link
Contributor

@sajarin sajarin commented Aug 8, 2023

What

Describe what the change is solving

The current low-code connector template uses the "lowcode" string for the language tag instead of "low-code" which causes QA checks to fail

How

Describe the solution
Change lowcode to low-code in the metadata.yaml template file

Recommended reading order

  1. metadata.yaml.hbs

@sajarin sajarin requested a review from a team as a code owner August 8, 2023 16:30
Copy link
Contributor

@bnchrch bnchrch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@sajarin Do you have a link to a failure caused by lowcode instead of low-code?

This is the code responsible for this: https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/blob/master/airbyte-ci/connectors/metadata_service/lib/metadata_service/validators/metadata_validator.py#L75

And im strugging to see where low-code would cause a success and lowcode a failure

@sajarin
Copy link
Contributor Author

sajarin commented Aug 8, 2023

@sajarin Do you have a link to a failure caused by lowcode instead of low-code?

This is the code responsible for this: https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/blob/master/airbyte-ci/connectors/metadata_service/lib/metadata_service/validators/metadata_validator.py#L75

And im strugging to see where low-code would cause a success and lowcode a failure

Thanks for taking a look @bnchrch, I wasn't sure if it was actually a bug tbh. This was the PR where I was running into metadata.yaml validation errors: #29164 (comment)

I think it's still worth merging this in for the sake of consistency with all of our other low-code connectors but maybe it's also worth broadening the scope and using this PR to add some other fields as well (like ab_internal)

@sajarin sajarin closed this Aug 23, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants