feat: Add plan() support to DynamoDBOnlineStore - #6661
Merged
ntkathole merged 1 commit intoJul 30, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Sorry, something went wrong.
DynamoDBOnlineStore has no plan() override, so it inherits OnlineStore.plan()'s no-op default: `feast plan` never reports any DynamoDB infrastructure changes, unlike SqliteOnlineStore and MilvusOnlineStore which both implement it. Adds DynamoDBTable (InfraObject) and DynamoDBOnlineStore.plan(), using the InfraObject proto's CustomInfra field (protos/feast/core/InfraObject.proto), which exists specifically so online stores can add InfraObject support without changes to the core proto -- no other in-tree store uses it yet. Note this only affects `feast plan`'s reporting: `feast apply`'s diff-based path (FeatureStore._should_use_plan(), which would call InfraObject.update()/teardown()) is gated to the local/sqlite provider only, so DynamoDBOnlineStore.update()/teardown() -- which already perform the real table creation/deletion -- are unaffected. Uses the corrected feature-view-list pattern (see feast-dev#6658 / feast-dev#6659): FeatureView.from_proto() and StreamFeatureView.from_proto() applied to their respective proto lists, not one applied to both. Signed-off-by: Carlos Sánchez <carlos.sancheza@cabify.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
|
⚠️ Please install the Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6661 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 45.93% 45.97% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 414 414
Lines 50006 50035 +29
Branches 7147 7147
==========================================
+ Hits 22972 23006 +34
+ Misses 25423 25418 -5
Partials 1611 1611
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
ntkathole
approved these changes
Jul 30, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
What this PR does / why we need it
Fixes #6660.
DynamoDBOnlineStore doesn't override OnlineStore.plan(), so it inherits the no-op default and feast plan never reports any DynamoDB table changes. SqliteOnlineStore and MilvusOnlineStore already implement plan(); this brings DynamoDB in line.
Adds:
Uses the corrected per-list pattern from #6659 (FeatureView.from_proto() for feature_views, StreamFeatureView.from_proto() for stream_feature_views) rather than applying one function to both, which is what caused the bug in #6658.
Scope note: this only changes what feast plan reports. feast apply's diff-based path (FeatureStore._should_use_plan(), which would call InfraObject.update()/teardown()) is gated to the local/sqlite provider only today, so DynamoDBOnlineStore.update()/teardown() -- which already perform the real table creation/deletion -- are completely unaffected. feast apply behavior for DynamoDB does not change.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
Fixes #6660
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Test plan