Add multi-source support to local and GCP provider #1454
Merged
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
Signed-off-by: Willem Pienaar <[email protected]>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: woop The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Signed-off-by: Willem Pienaar <[email protected]>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Signed-off-by: Willem Pienaar [email protected]
What this PR does / why we need it:
The Provider model delegates control over which sources/stores can be used to individual provider implementations. #1437 moved the store logic into each provider. This PR separates out the offline store (sources) into their own class, allowing providers to opt into specific storage implementations (FileSource, BigQuerySource), while still granting control to providers to choose which providers they allow/disallow. More tangibly, we now allow a LocalProvider to use a BigQueryOfflineStore. We also allow a BigQueryProvider to use a FileOfflineStore.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: