-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Can't overwrite an existing dataset #17093
Comments
I also faced on this bug. How to fix this? |
Same issue as above, same errors in log. |
Same issue here, happy to contribute anyhow |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. For admin, please label this issue |
@andrey-zayats took a look at this and was unable to reproduce the issue. I'm going to go ahead and remove the |
Superset fails to overwrite an existing dataset in SQL Editor. Request fails with
Exception: Dataset [examples].[Test] already exists
inbefore_update
function.How to reproduce the bug
SELECT table_catalog, table_name FROM information_schema.tables
Explore
. EnterTest
inSave as new
field and clickSave & Explore
SELECT table_catalog FROM information_schema.tables
Explore
. EnterTest
inOverwrite existing
field and clickSave & Explore
Expected results
Superset overwrites dataset and redirects to Explore view
Actual results
Browser calls
PUT http://localhost:8088/api/v1/dataset/1?override_columns=true
with request:and Superset returns 500 Internal Server Error with response:
Test
dataset SQL query gets updated despite the server error.Exception stacktrace:
Environment
I experience this issue consistently in AWS running Superset
v1.3.0
. However, I also reproduced it with local Docker containers andtags/1.3.1
, though it didn't happen the first time I tried, but after Docker containers recreation, so it may require a few tries.v1.3.1
3.7.9
Checklist
Make sure to follow these steps before submitting your issue - thank you!
Additional context
I think that #16859 might have introduced that issue. #16434 is similar, but seems to address something slightly different.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: