Skip to content

chore: raise databricks-sdk upper bound to <0.137.0 - #1672

Open
moomindani wants to merge 2 commits into
databricks:mainfrom
moomindani:chore/bump-databricks-sdk
Open

chore: raise databricks-sdk upper bound to <0.137.0#1672
moomindani wants to merge 2 commits into
databricks:mainfrom
moomindani:chore/bump-databricks-sdk

Conversation

@moomindani

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

The current ceiling <0.118.0 excludes everything after databricks-sdk 0.117.0, which is 19 releases behind 0.136.0 — the widest gap among this adapter's dependencies. This raises the bound and moves the lock to 0.136.0. requirements.lowest-direct.txt is unchanged.

mypy passes against 0.136.0, so nothing the adapter imports or calls from the SDK has been removed or renamed.

Testing

Per bump: unit suite 1343 passed, 4 skipped; code-quality clean; uv lock --check consistent.

Functional coverage was run against a serverless SQL warehouse with all four dependency bumps applied together: tests/functional/adapter/incremental/ and tests/functional/adapter/iceberg/ gave 118 passed, 6 skipped, and 3 failures (TestAppendParquet, and the two column-tag tests) that reproduce identically on main with no bumps.

Checklist

  • I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
  • I have updated the CHANGELOG.md and added information about my change to the "dbt-databricks next" section.
  • [Optional] I have run the dbt-databricks-pr-ready project skill for this PR and addressed its merge-readiness feedback

Picks up databricks-sdk 0.136.0, 19 releases ahead of the 0.117.0 the old
ceiling allowed. The lowest-direct lock is unchanged.

Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
sd-db added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2026
### Description

`scripts/check_uv_lock_public_urls.py --fix` normalizes the `source = {
registry = ... }` entries but not the artifact `url` entries, and the
check it runs immediately afterwards requires both. On a lock produced
against a mirrored index that means `--fix` rewrites 114 registries,
leaves 1512 package URLs, and then reports failure — so the URLs have to
be substituted by hand before the pre-commit hook will pass.

This came up while raising four dependency bounds (#1670, #1671, #1672,
#1673): every one of them needed the same manual substitution after `uv
lock`.

`--fix` now rewrites the host of URLs shaped like the public artifact
tree. Only the host changes: the `/packages/` path identifies the
artifact and the hash recorded beside it is what guarantees integrity,
so the rewrite cannot silently point at different content. A URL without
a `/packages/` path is not a mirror of that tree, so rewriting its host
would be a guess — those are left for the check to report.

The `--fix` summary line now reports both counts, so `fix_uv_lock`
returns a `(registry_count, url_count)` pair.

### Testing

New `tests/unit/test_check_uv_lock_public_urls.py` (6 tests) covers the
check on a public and a mirrored lock, the fix on both, path and hash
preservation, and the non-mirror URL left alone. Three of them fail
against the current script.

End to end on this repo: regenerating `uv.lock` against a mirrored index
and running `--fix` alone now produces a file byte-identical to the
committed `uv.lock`, and `uv lock --check` agrees.

Unit suite 1349 passed, 4 skipped; `code-quality` clean.

### Checklist

- [x] I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the
stated issue
- [x] This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for
this PR
- [x] I have updated the `CHANGELOG.md` and added information about my
change to the "dbt-databricks next" section.
- [ ] [Optional] I have run the `dbt-databricks-pr-ready` project skill
for this PR and addressed its merge-readiness feedback

---------

Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Shubham Dhal <shubham.dhal@databricks.com>
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.

1 participant