Skip to content

Conversation

@sundarshankar89
Copy link
Collaborator

@sundarshankar89 sundarshankar89 commented Jan 21, 2026

Changes

What does this PR do?

Standardize Profiler Path Extract

Relevant implementation details

Caveats/things to watch out for when reviewing:

Linked issues

Resolves #..

Functionality

  • added relevant user documentation
  • added new CLI command
  • modified existing command: databricks labs lakebridge ...
  • ... +add your own

Tests

  • manually tested
  • added unit tests
  • added integration tests

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 63.95%. Comparing base (5edc2b5) to head (3565d4d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...databricks/labs/lakebridge/assessments/pipeline.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
.../labs/lakebridge/assessments/profiler_validator.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2237   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   63.95%   63.95%           
=======================================
  Files          99       99           
  Lines        8644     8644           
  Branches      890      890           
=======================================
  Hits         5528     5528           
  Misses       2944     2944           
  Partials      172      172           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2026

✅ 130/130 passed, 8 flaky, 5 skipped, 9m32s total

Flaky tests:

  • 🤪 test_installs_and_runs_local_bladebridge (21.851s)
  • 🤪 test_installs_and_runs_pypi_bladebridge (27.102s)
  • 🤪 test_transpiles_informatica_to_sparksql_non_interactive[True] (17.705s)
  • 🤪 test_transpile_teradata_sql_non_interactive[True] (18.264s)
  • 🤪 test_transpile_teradata_sql (19.233s)
  • 🤪 test_transpiles_informatica_to_sparksql_non_interactive[False] (3.856s)
  • 🤪 test_recon_databricks_job_succeeds (25.346s)
  • 🤪 test_transpile_teradata_sql_non_interactive[False] (13.445s)

Running from acceptance #3486

version: "1.0"
# TODO: This needs to be removed.
extract_folder: "/tmp/data/synapse_assessment"
extract_folder: "~/.databricks/labs/lakebridge_profilers/synapse_assessment"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FYI we'll need to add the run Id as a path prefix in a follow-up PR.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why at the folder level? can we not do it at table level inside the database?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why don't we make the profiler output configurable by the user?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

having it central will help us share state more easily across component, That was the principle behind a common central location.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can see the value of that. Maybe we need to think about how to manage the state for all modules and then standardize the optionality of outputs for all.

Copy link
Contributor

@goodwillpunning goodwillpunning left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Copy link
Contributor

@eri-adepoju eri-adepoju left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@gueniai gueniai added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 22, 2026
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jan 22, 2026
@sundarshankar89 sundarshankar89 added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 22, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 17c9d24 Jan 22, 2026
6 checks passed
@sundarshankar89 sundarshankar89 deleted the patch/profiler_extract_path branch January 22, 2026 05:11
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.

5 participants