Forum Discussion
user data function with source control behavior
Hi,
Thank you both for the usefull and thorough responses.
MJParikh I agree with your reply but I did some further testing with the UDF connection. See below for details. Because I expected a silent rebind as you describe in your post and the names of the lakehouses are identical indeed.
Mauro89 I also agree with your suggestion here, on other fabric items this is working but in my testing not with a UDF.
Because if I try to work with a UDF and connect to the lakehouse in DEV workspace in my feature branch, I followed below steps, I get an error, see screenshots.
So what I tried doing:
- I made a feature branch from main with source control > branch out to workspace
- in the feature branch I created a new UDF with a connection to the lakehouse in the dev workspace, that has the same name in dev and feature workspaces. And queried some data from the lakehouse in the dev workspace.
- Published the udf.
- with source control I committed the udf to git.
- created a pull request to merge into the main branch
- update the main branch from source control.
- I opened the UDF in main branch and ran my test. I still get a commit in main.
- commit the change to main branch with source control
I see a change in de definition.json, see below:
But the lakehouse in DEV has this ID (2ce75851-c895-49ea-87c6-32ed1b990e3a). The artifactId on the right side of the screenshot I cannot find in my workspace (DEV or feature).
- With a pull request I synchronized my feature branch with main.
- when I update the feature branch through source control. I get the below error message
So I’m still not sure what the best practices are for working with UDF’s and GIT.
For now I would suggest creating the connection to the feature branch and the binding will be correct. But for other Fabric items this is not the case.
I hope it is clear what I try to achieve. We are thinking of using UDF’s for error handling functions etc with multiple developers and are testing all fabric items and git integration. And this is some behaviour we didn’t expect.
Again thanks for your replies
Kind regards