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

Onelake connector #3051

Open
Delacrobix opened this issue Dec 19, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #3057
Open

Onelake connector #3051

Delacrobix opened this issue Dec 19, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #3057
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Delacrobix
Copy link

Delacrobix commented Dec 19, 2024

Hello!

Following the recommendations described in the article
How to create custom connectors for Elasticsearch, I am opening this issue.

I am working on the connector development in this fork.

I have some doubts about:

  • I would like to confirm if dependencies must be allocated in the framework.txt
    I couldn't find any requirements.txt

  • Regarding the tests, I found information in the article "How to Create Custom Connectors for Elasticsearch" about their location. It mentions they are in the path connectors/source/test (referenced here: https://www.elastic.co/search-labs/blog/how-to-create-customized-connectors-for-elasticsearch#acceptance-criteria-for-contributing-connectors). However, that path does not exist. I assume this has changed, and they are now located in the test/sources folder. I bring this up because in the following document: https://github.com/elastic/connectors/blob/main/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md#acceptance-criteria. It is stated that any modification outside the connectors/sources folder will be rejected.

  • I am using the library azure-storage-file-datalake==12.17.0, which has compatibility issues with azure-storage-blob==12.19.1, used in other connectors. What is a better option? : Should I update azure-storage-blob? Or should I downgrade azure-storage-file-datalake?
    For now, I downgraded azure-storage-file-datalake used by Onelake connector to 12.14.0 version.

I would also appreciate some feedback on:

Tests

Connector implementation

Please let me know if you find anything else that can be improved.

@Delacrobix Delacrobix added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 19, 2024
@seanstory
Copy link
Member

I would like to confirm the dependencies must be allocated in the framework.txt file, I don’t find any file named requirements.txt

Yep! The requirements/ directory, as opposed to a single file, allows us to separate requirements by use case and platform. Most of the time, new requirements go into framework.txt.

Regarding the tests [...]

You're correct. The source code lives in the connectors/ dir, and the tests for that code lives in the tests/ dir. We will not auto-reject PRs that have tests :) I'll make a note to revisit the CONTRIBUTING.md guide, to make sure it's more clear.

I am using the library azure-storage-file-datalake==12.17.0, which has compatibility issues with azure-storage-blob==12.19.1, used in other connectors. What should I do in this case?

I'm not sure. If you can update azure-storage-blob to a newer version without breaking things, go for it. If it breaks minor things that you can address in the same PR, go for it. If it's a significantly problematic update, then yes, might be better to start with azure-storage-file-datalake at a lower version.

I would also appreciate some feedback

Best way to get that would be to open a Draft PR.
I would ask that you provide some more information about your use case though. What it is that you have in Onelake, why you want a connector for it, how you intend to search over it, etc. This will help our product team evaluate if this would be a good fit to add to our catalog. CC @danajuratoni

@Delacrobix Delacrobix linked a pull request Dec 24, 2024 that will close this issue
11 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants