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

Databricks: allow to specify PAT in Password field #19585

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 14, 2021

Conversation

alexott
Copy link
Contributor

@alexott alexott commented Nov 14, 2021

Currently, the PAT is specified in the extra section, where it's visible, so it's less secure. This PR allows to put PAT into Password field where it will be masked when editing the existing connection

Currently, the PAT is specified in the extra section, where it's
visible, so it's less secure. This PR allows to put PAT into Password
field where it will be masked when editing the existing connection
…s.rst

Co-authored-by: Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com>
Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Small NIT with "empty login" when token is used as password.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the okay to merge It's ok to merge this PR as it does not require more tests label Nov 14, 2021
@github-actions
Copy link

The PR is likely OK to be merged with just subset of tests for default Python and Database versions without running the full matrix of tests, because it does not modify the core of Airflow. If the committers decide that the full tests matrix is needed, they will add the label 'full tests needed'. Then you should rebase to the latest main or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

@alexott
Copy link
Contributor Author

alexott commented Nov 14, 2021

Thank you - just added that suggestion

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:providers kind:documentation okay to merge It's ok to merge this PR as it does not require more tests
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants