Skip to content

chore(DENG-10722): initiate backfill for urlbar_events_v2#9258

Open
kbammarito wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
DENG-10722-initiate-backfill-urlbar-events-v2
Open

chore(DENG-10722): initiate backfill for urlbar_events_v2#9258
kbammarito wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
DENG-10722-initiate-backfill-urlbar-events-v2

Conversation

@kbammarito
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

This PR backfills urlbar_events_v2 after additions in #9246

Related Tickets & Documents

Reviewer, please follow this checklist

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@kbammarito kbammarito marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2026 21:06
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 8, 2026

Claude finished @kbammarito's task in 2m 13s —— View job


Claude Code Review

  • Read the changed file (backfill.yaml)
  • Check existing backfill entries / context for urlbar_events_v2
  • Review against backfill conventions / recommended practices
  • Post review feedback

Note: I attempted to post this as a formal GitHub review (with inline comments on the relevant lines), but the mcp__github__create_and_submit_pull_request_review and mcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment tools weren't permitted in this run. Folding the feedback into this comment instead. See the FAQ for permission configuration.


Summary

The new entry is well-formed and passes the structural rules in bigquery_etl/backfill/validate.py:

  • Entry date 2026-05-01 is 7 days old — well inside the 28-day MAX_BACKFILL_ENTRY_AGE_DAYS cutoff.
  • start_date 2025-01-01 is 486 days before the entry date, comfortably under the 775-day NBR_DAYS_RETAINED limit, so no override_retention_limit is needed.
  • Entries remain sorted by entry date (descending); only one Initiate entry exists.
  • Watchers are concrete addresses (no default), all override flags are explicit, shredder_mitigation: false is consistent with the rest of the file.

Two non-blocking points worth confirming before merging — both have material cost implications.

1. Significant overlap with prior completed backfills

backfill.yaml:1-12 — The new range 2025-01-01 → 2026-05-01 fully re-processes the window already covered by the three Complete entries below it:

Entry date Covered range Status
2026-03-25 2025-01-01 → 2025-01-31 Complete
2026-03-30 2025-02-01 → 2025-04-30 Complete
2026-03-31 2025-05-01 → 2026-03-31 Complete

If #9246 added columns that need to be populated retroactively across the full window, a full rebackfill is the right call. But it redoes ~15 months of previously-Complete work, which is non-trivial in slot/storage cost (per docs/reference/recommended_practices.md § Large Backfills, this also moves data out of long-term storage for ~90 days). Worth a sanity check that this is intentional vs. scoping the new entry to just the gap (2026-04-01 → 2026-05-01) — or to whatever partitions still have NULLs for the new fields.

Also — the previous unsuccessful single-shot attempts (2026-03-20 and 2026-03-27, both Cancelled) suggest that a single 16-month entry has historically been at the edge of what runs cleanly here. A staged approach (mirroring the successful smaller chunks) would lower the blast radius if something fails partway through.

2. reason could carry more context

backfill.yaml:4 — The link to DENG-10722 is useful, but referencing the schema-changing PR (#9246) directly in the reason — and ideally naming the new fields being populated — would make the intent self-documenting in the file, matching the more descriptive style used in older entries (2026-03-25, 2026-03-30, 2026-03-31). Suggestion:

reason: Backfill new fields added in https://github.com/mozilla/bigquery-etl/pull/9246 (DENG-10722).

Reminder

Per recommended_practices.md § Large Backfills, please validate the run afterwards via monitoring.bigquery_usage for slot/byte usage and any errors once the job completes.


• Branch: DENG-10722-initiate-backfill-urlbar-events-v2

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@alekhyamoz alekhyamoz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Integration report for "chore(DENG-10722): initiate backfill for urlbar_events_v2"

sql.diff

Click to expand!
diff -bur --no-dereference --new-file /tmp/workspace/main-generated-sql/sql/moz-fx-data-shared-prod/firefox_desktop_derived/urlbar_events_v2/backfill.yaml /tmp/workspace/generated-sql/sql/moz-fx-data-shared-prod/firefox_desktop_derived/urlbar_events_v2/backfill.yaml
--- /tmp/workspace/main-generated-sql/sql/moz-fx-data-shared-prod/firefox_desktop_derived/urlbar_events_v2/backfill.yaml	2026-05-14 16:53:58.070325657 +0000
+++ /tmp/workspace/generated-sql/sql/moz-fx-data-shared-prod/firefox_desktop_derived/urlbar_events_v2/backfill.yaml	2026-05-14 16:53:53.102272516 +0000
@@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
+2026-05-14:
+  start_date: 2025-01-01
+  end_date: 2026-05-14
+  reason: Backfill new fields added in DENG-10722, PR 9246
+  watchers:
+  - kbammarito@mozilla.com
+  - nflorez@mozilla.com
+  status: Initiate
+  shredder_mitigation: false
+  override_retention_limit: false
+  override_depends_on_past_end_date: false
+  ignore_date_partition_offset: false
 2026-03-31:
   start_date: 2025-05-01
   end_date: 2026-03-31

Link to full diff

@kbammarito kbammarito added this pull request to the merge queue May 14, 2026
@kbammarito kbammarito removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request May 14, 2026
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