Skip to content

Conversation

machichima
Copy link
Member

@machichima machichima commented Jun 6, 2025

Tracking issue

Part of flyteorg/flyte#6465

Why are the changes needed?

Currently, our Connector cannot retry when task fail, which results in a loss of features for end users migrating from a plugin to a connector

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

map internal_error to RETRYABLE_FAILED

How was this patch tested?

See test in flyteorg/flyte#6486

Setup process

Screenshots

Check all the applicable boxes

  • I updated the documentation accordingly.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

flyteorg/flyte#6486

Docs link

Summary by Bito

This pull request enhances the Flyte connectors by adding task retry functionality for internal error failures and improved error handling, mapping 'INTERNAL_ERROR' to 'RETRYABLE_FAILED'. It also optimizes async runner functions in the test suite for better performance and reliability, significantly boosting the user experience for migration from plugins to connectors.

@flyte-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Bito Automatic Review Skipped - Draft PR

Bito didn't auto-review because this pull request is in draft status.
No action is needed if you didn't intend for the agent to review it. Otherwise, to manually trigger a review, type /review in a comment and save.
You can change draft PR review settings here, or contact your Bito workspace admin at [email protected].

@machichima machichima marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2025 11:48
@machichima machichima changed the title [WIP] [Core feature] Task retry support in Flyte Connectors [Core feature] Task retry support in Flyte Connectors Jun 12, 2025
@machichima machichima force-pushed the 6465-connector-retry branch 2 times, most recently from e0e9e35 to 464aa9a Compare July 17, 2025 13:15
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 17, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 47.51%. Comparing base (f87103c) to head (512e07e).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
flytekit/extend/backend/utils.py 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (f87103c) and HEAD (512e07e). Click for more details.

HEAD has 42 uploads less than BASE
Flag BASE (f87103c) HEAD (512e07e)
43 1
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3265       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   85.12%   47.51%   -37.62%     
===========================================
  Files         312      215       -97     
  Lines       26972    22497     -4475     
  Branches     2952     2952               
===========================================
- Hits        22960    10689    -12271     
- Misses       3182    11236     +8054     
+ Partials      830      572      -258     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

def runner_for_async(rpm: int, total: int):
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
return loop.run_until_complete(helper_for_async(rpm, total))
return asyncio.run(helper_for_async(rpm, total))
Copy link
Member Author

@machichima machichima Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Create a fresh event loop each time and prevent using existing event loop. This fixes the CI test fail: https://github.com/flyteorg/flytekit/actions/runs/17783377366/job/50554009811

@pingsutw pingsutw merged commit 665a4ef into flyteorg:master Sep 17, 2025
338 of 343 checks passed
Atharva1723 pushed a commit to Atharva1723/flytekit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants