potiuk commented on a change in pull request #4354: [AIRFLOW-3446] Add Google Cloud BigTable operators URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/4354#discussion_r244048057
########## File path: airflow/contrib/hooks/gcp_bigtable_hook.py ########## @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ +# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- +# +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one +# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file +# distributed with this work for additional information +# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file +# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the +# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance +# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at +# +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +# +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, +# software distributed under the License is distributed on an +# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY +# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the +# specific language governing permissions and limitations +# under the License. + +from google.cloud.bigtable import Client +from google.cloud.bigtable.cluster import Cluster +from google.cloud.bigtable.instance import Instance +from google.cloud.bigtable.table import Table +from google.cloud.bigtable_admin_v2 import enums +from airflow.contrib.hooks.gcp_api_base_hook import GoogleCloudBaseHook + + +# noinspection PyAbstractClass +class BigtableHook(GoogleCloudBaseHook): + """ + Hook for Google Cloud Bigtable APIs. + """ + + _client = None + + def __init__(self, + gcp_conn_id='google_cloud_default', + delegate_to=None): + super(BigtableHook, self).__init__(gcp_conn_id, delegate_to) + + def get_client(self, project_id): + if not self._client: + self._client = Client(project=project_id, credentials=self._get_credentials(), admin=True) + return self._client + + def get_instance(self, project_id, instance_id): Review comment: That's indeed a good idea in general for all GCP operators. We have not done it so far in neither of them - we've implemented around 30 operators so far and all of them have PROJECT_ID required. I think it's a good improvement proposal to all 30 operators - maybe we could implement it as a separate PR (because it has some consequences - in a number of places we validate that project_id is needed, we have unit tests testing it and some validation rules implemented. What do you think? ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
