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

Add created timestamp for feature views #1952

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jan 6, 2022

Conversation

amommendes
Copy link
Contributor

@amommendes amommendes commented Oct 17, 2021

What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds created timestamp for feature views

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #1933

Added created timestamp to Feature Views

@feast-ci-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @amommendes. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a feast-dev member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

adchia and others added 2 commits October 17, 2021 18:29
* Update hero image

Signed-off-by: Danny Chiao <danny@tecton.ai>

* Fix roadmap extra line

Signed-off-by: Danny Chiao <danny@tecton.ai>
Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
@amommendes
Copy link
Contributor Author

amommendes commented Oct 17, 2021

Hey @achals , I think this is not good with a nested if. However BaseFeatureView does not have created_timestamp and since OnDemandFeatureView does not need created_timestamp does not make sense to add this in the base feature view... WDYT?

@achals
Copy link
Member

achals commented Oct 18, 2021

Hey @achals , I think this is not good with a nested if. However BaseFeatureView does not have created_timestamp and since OnDemandFeatureView does not need created_timestamp does not make sense to add this in the base feature view... WDYT?

I think it's safer to add the created_timestamp to the OnDemandFeatureView for consistency, in the same way that it's defined for FeatureViews.

@amommendes
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @achals , I think this is not good with a nested if. However BaseFeatureView does not have created_timestamp and since OnDemandFeatureView does not need created_timestamp does not make sense to add this in the base feature view... WDYT?

I think it's safer to add the created_timestamp to the OnDemandFeatureView for consistency, in the same way that it's defined for FeatureViews.

Thanks @achals... All right... If makes sense to have created_timestamp in the OnDemandFeatureView, then we can add it to the BaseFeatureView in order to maintain the signature consistency between child classes...

… view

Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
@felixwang9817
Copy link
Collaborator

/ok-to-test

@felixwang9817
Copy link
Collaborator

/kind feature

@feast-ci-bot feast-ci-bot added kind/feature New feature or request and removed needs-kind labels Oct 20, 2021
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 20, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1952 (fc4bcab) into master (2435777) will decrease coverage by 0.25%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1952      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.64%   84.38%   -0.26%     
==========================================
  Files         103      103              
  Lines        8523     8531       +8     
==========================================
- Hits         7214     7199      -15     
- Misses       1309     1332      +23     
Flag Coverage Δ
integrationtests 75.71% <100.00%> (-0.24%) ⬇️
unittests 60.01% <45.45%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
sdk/python/feast/feature_view.py 89.24% <ø> (+1.19%) ⬆️
sdk/python/feast/base_feature_view.py 78.26% <100.00%> (+0.48%) ⬆️
sdk/python/feast/on_demand_feature_view.py 95.20% <100.00%> (+0.20%) ⬆️
sdk/python/feast/registry.py 80.90% <100.00%> (+0.13%) ⬆️
sdk/python/feast/infra/aws.py 72.59% <0.00%> (-11.06%) ⬇️
sdk/python/feast/infra/online_stores/datastore.py 91.33% <0.00%> (-2.37%) ⬇️
.../integration/online_store/test_universal_online.py 98.13% <0.00%> (+0.46%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2435777...fc4bcab. Read the comment docs.

@amommendes
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @achals , there is an error on linting step because of this exception:
feast/infra/gcp.py:25: error: Module 'google.cloud' has no attribute 'storage'

Is there some problem with the version of this lib?

@SanRehmo
Copy link

Hey @achals , there is an error on linting step because of this exception: feast/infra/gcp.py:25: error: Module 'google.cloud' has no attribute 'storage'

Is there some problem with the version of this lib?

This might be caused by an issue with mypy: python/mypy#10360

@felixwang9817
Copy link
Collaborator

@SanRehmo, thanks for pointing that out! That was indeed the problem, which has now been fixed. @amommendes, would you mind rebasing your changes on master and then force pushing your changes up? Thanks!

@amommendes
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SanRehmo, thanks for pointing that out! That was indeed the problem, which has now been fixed. @amommendes, would you mind rebasing your changes on master and then force pushing your changes up? Thanks!

Done @felixwang9817 , tks!

Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@achals achals left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @amommendes , I think we need one more change for this to work as expected

Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Amom Mendes <amommendes@hotmail.com>
@amommendes
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @achals , some update on this PR? WDYT?

Copy link
Member

@achals achals left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Sorry, I missed this in my inbox. Looks good!

@feast-ci-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: achals, amommendes

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@feast-ci-bot feast-ci-bot merged commit ad3ea8d into feast-dev:master Jan 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

FeatureViews creation time
8 participants