dstandish commented on a change in pull request #19530:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/19530#discussion_r747023851
##########
File path: airflow/providers/salesforce/hooks/salesforce.py
##########
@@ -131,22 +131,39 @@ def get_conn(self) -> api.Salesforce:
if not self.conn:
Review comment:
using a cached_property instead is a common pattern in airflow and IMHO
cleaner
##########
File path: airflow/providers/salesforce/hooks/salesforce.py
##########
@@ -131,22 +131,39 @@ def get_conn(self) -> api.Salesforce:
if not self.conn:
connection = self.get_connection(self.conn_id)
extras = connection.extra_dejson
+ # all extras below (besides the version one) are explicitly
defaulted to None
+ # because simple-salesforce has a built-in authentication-choosing
method that
+ # relies on which arguments are None and without "or None" setting
this connection
+ # in the UI will result in the blank extras being empty strings
instead of None,
+ # which would break the connection if "get" was used on its own.
self.conn = Salesforce(
username=connection.login,
password=connection.password,
- security_token=extras["extra__salesforce__security_token"] or
None,
- domain=extras["extra__salesforce__domain"] or None,
+ security_token=extras.get('security_token')
Review comment:
question... why are we [re?]introducing the `security_token` alongside
the `extra__salesforce__`-formatted one?
is it for backward compat? i'd assume if these were renamed then it was
done in a major and we need not worry about backward compat?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
