BFD-3664: Pipeline job for SAMHSA tag backfill. #2506
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
…if/samhsa/CcwTagKey.java Co-authored-by: aschey-forpeople <[email protected]>
dondevun
requested review from
mjburling,
aschey-forpeople and
malessi
as code owners
| ConfigLoader config, boolean ccwPipelineEnabled) { | ||
| boolean enabled = config.booleanOption(SSM_PATH_SAMHSA_BACKFILL_ENABLED).orElse(false); | ||
| // We don't want to run if we're on a CCW Pipeline instance | ||
| if (!enabled || ccwPipelineEnabled) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is a bit confusing that this runs on the RDA pipeline, but I understand the reasoning. Ideally this could run as its own pipeline, but that would increase the complexity a fair bit. I think this is fine for now and we can revisit once we're running in ECS.
dondevun
force-pushed
the
BFD-3664
branch
2 times, most recently
from
890887b to
b75b481
Compare
| /** Query to perform upsert on the backfill progress table for a given claim table. */ | ||
| public static final String UPSERT_PROGRESS_QUERY = | ||
| """ | ||
| INSERT INTO ccw.samhsa_backfill_progress |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose we have to remember to reset the progress table each time we want to run a new backfill job. I was thinking we could tie it to a job ID or something that can increment each time, but that's probably not worth the complexity. Probably just want to add a note to the runbook that this table will need to be reset.
aschey-forpeople
approved these changes
Jan 21, 2025
MahiFentaye
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2025
dondevun
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2025
aschey-forpeople
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2025
MahiFentaye
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2025
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.
JIRA Ticket:
BFD-3664
What Does This PR Do?
This PR adds a pipeline job to backfill the SAMHSA tags tables. This will be able to run concurrently with the RDA pipeline job, but is disabled on CCW pipeline instances.
This will process all of the tables that could have SAMHSA codes concurrently, each with its own entityManager. There were some tradeoffs for the sake of performance, the biggest being that it does not construct entities from the SQL queries. Instead, it returns arrays of objects, and relies on the code to be aware of the types in each array position. This is obviously not ideal, the biggest issue being possible ClassCastExceptions if the array objects are not processed in the correct order; however, without the entity class to map the columns to the types, it is unfortunately unavoidable for this implementation.
What Should Reviewers Watch For?
If you're reviewing this PR, please check for these things in particular:
What Security Implications Does This PR Have?
Please indicate if this PR does any of the following:
Adds any new software dependencies
Modifies any security controls
Adds new transmission or storage of data
Any other changes that could possibly affect security?
I have considered the above security implications as it relates to this PR. (If one or more of the above apply, it cannot be merged without the ISSO or team security engineer's (
@sb-benohe) approval.)Validation
Have you fully verified and tested these changes? Is the acceptance criteria met? Please provide reproducible testing instructions, code snippets, or screenshots as applicable.