feat(low code cdk): updated format_datetime macros to format timestamps #448
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request updates the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller as Caller
participant Fmt as format_datetime
Caller->>+Fmt: Call format_datetime(dt, format, input_format)
alt dt is int
Fmt->>Fmt: Convert dt using DatetimeParser().parse(dt, input_format if input_format else "%s")
else dt is str/datetime
alt input_format provided
Fmt->>Fmt: Parse dt using input_format
else
Fmt->>Fmt: Convert dt using str_to_datetime(dt)
end
end
Fmt-->>-Caller: Return formatted date string
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (9)
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/interpolation/macros.py (1)
174-179: Timestamp handling logic looks goodThe implementation for handling integer timestamps works well by converting them to datetime objects with UTC timezone.
I was wondering if it might be helpful to add a clarifying comment that the integer is assumed to be a UNIX timestamp (seconds since epoch)? This could be useful if there's a possibility of receiving timestamps in milliseconds format in the future, wdyt?
Also, do you think it would be worth adding some basic error handling for potentially invalid timestamps (e.g., negative numbers)? Not a big deal, just a thought!
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/interpolation/macros.py(2 hunks)unit_tests/sources/declarative/interpolation/test_macros.py(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (10)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-pokeapi' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-amplitude' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-shopify' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Check: 'source-hardcoded-records' (skip=false)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (All, Python 3.11, Ubuntu)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (All, Python 3.10, Ubuntu)
- GitHub Check: Pytest (Fast)
- GitHub Check: preview_docs
- GitHub Check: SDM Docker Image Build
- GitHub Check: Analyze (python)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
unit_tests/sources/declarative/interpolation/test_macros.py (2)
86-91: Great addition of timestamp conversion test!This test case nicely validates that the
format_datetimefunction correctly handles integer timestamps. It verifies that timestamp 1683729087 is properly converted to "2023-05-10T14:31:27Z".Would it be worth adding a few more test cases for edge timestamps (like dates from 1970s or future dates), wdyt?
105-105: Clear test identifier addedThe identifier "test_timestamp_to_format_string" matches the new test case and makes the purpose clear.
airbyte_cdk/sources/declarative/interpolation/macros.py (1)
159-159: Function signature updated to support integersThe signature change to include
intin the Union type fordtparameter looks good and aligns with the PR objective.
What
Needed for export stream migration to low code in source mixpanel airbytehq/airbyte#55189
in python implementation of export stream cursor field
timewas transformed from timestamp to string in format "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ".How
As
format_datetimemacros works only with str and datetime objects , logic to parse timestamp to datetime if input value is instance of int was added.Summary by CodeRabbit