META-299 migrate to prefect #4
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lucasotodegraeve
changed the title
lucasotodegraeve
force-pushed
the
meta-299-migrate-to-prefect
branch
3 times, most recently
from
2d3c242 to
5f14a0a
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rewrite it in
RustPrefect.There are two parts to the code. One part is a script to facilitate authorization (see the readme for more details). The other is the Prefect flow to sync the data. I essentially took the SQL statements out of the old code and constructed the needed Prefect flows around them. The code is kept as simple as possible.
Each Teamleader resource (e.g. companies, users, contacts, etc.) is synced in a subflow. If one resource fails (e.g. companies), the other flows can still continue.
On INT (and likely also on QAS) some resource subflows fails because Teamleader for that environments is not set up properly.
There are some items left to do, but now seems a nice moment to get feedback.
TODO:
openshift/to.openshift/get_last_modified_dateuses the latest modified date from one of the etl_harvest tables. Our other flows use a block to store this timestamp. Which option should be chosen for this use case?