-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
Added protos for managed catalog #10708
Conversation
Documentation preview for 33bf5da will be available here when this CircleCI job completes successfully. More info
|
@kriscon-db Thank you for the contribution! Could you fix the following issue(s)? ⚠ DCO checkThe DCO check failed. Please sign off your commit(s) by following the instructions here. See https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work for more details. |
optional bool include_browse = 9; | ||
|
||
// Optional. Whether to include information of shallow clones or not if this is base table. | ||
optional bool include_shallow_clones = 10; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Minor: do we need this? If the value is unspecified --> defaults to false
, seems we'd just exclude shallow clone info, which we don't need (since we only need table ID)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So these were low cost flags to add (i.e. I didn't need to port over an entirely new proto object to support them). We can remove them and add them back in if/when we need them if you want this to be as minimal as possible.
optional string full_name_arg = 1; | ||
|
||
// True if delta metadata should be included in the response. | ||
optional bool include_delta_metadata = 3; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Similarly do we need include_delta_metadata
? Or ok to omit it and allow delta metadata to not-be returned always when we call this endpoint from the client
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only minor comments, otherwise LG
Related Issues/PRs
#xxxWhat changes are proposed in this pull request?
Add protos for managed catalog call and update the proto script
How is this PR tested?
Does this PR require documentation update?
Release Notes
Is this a user-facing change?
What component(s), interfaces, languages, and integrations does this PR affect?
Components
area/artifacts
: Artifact stores and artifact loggingarea/build
: Build and test infrastructure for MLflowarea/deployments
: MLflow Deployments client APIs, server, and third-party Deployments integrationsarea/docs
: MLflow documentation pagesarea/examples
: Example codearea/model-registry
: Model Registry service, APIs, and the fluent client calls for Model Registryarea/models
: MLmodel format, model serialization/deserialization, flavorsarea/recipes
: Recipes, Recipe APIs, Recipe configs, Recipe Templatesarea/projects
: MLproject format, project running backendsarea/scoring
: MLflow Model server, model deployment tools, Spark UDFsarea/server-infra
: MLflow Tracking server backendarea/tracking
: Tracking Service, tracking client APIs, autologgingInterface
area/uiux
: Front-end, user experience, plotting, JavaScript, JavaScript dev serverarea/docker
: Docker use across MLflow's components, such as MLflow Projects and MLflow Modelsarea/sqlalchemy
: Use of SQLAlchemy in the Tracking Service or Model Registryarea/windows
: Windows supportLanguage
language/r
: R APIs and clientslanguage/java
: Java APIs and clientslanguage/new
: Proposals for new client languagesIntegrations
integrations/azure
: Azure and Azure ML integrationsintegrations/sagemaker
: SageMaker integrationsintegrations/databricks
: Databricks integrationsHow should the PR be classified in the release notes? Choose one:
rn/none
- No description will be included. The PR will be mentioned only by the PR number in the "Small Bugfixes and Documentation Updates" sectionrn/breaking-change
- The PR will be mentioned in the "Breaking Changes" sectionrn/feature
- A new user-facing feature worth mentioning in the release notesrn/bug-fix
- A user-facing bug fix worth mentioning in the release notesrn/documentation
- A user-facing documentation change worth mentioning in the release notes