mirror of
				https://github.com/open-metadata/OpenMetadata.git
				synced 2025-10-31 18:48:35 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			318 lines
		
	
	
		
			17 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			318 lines
		
	
	
		
			17 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
| ---
 | |
| title: High Level Design
 | |
| slug: /main-concepts/high-level-design
 | |
| ---
 | |
| 
 | |
| # High Level Design
 | |
| 
 | |
| This Solution Design document will help us explore and understand the internals of OpenMetadata services, how are they built and
 | |
| their interactions.
 | |
| 
 | |
| We will start by describing the big picture of the software design of the application. Bit by bit we will get inside
 | |
| specific components, describing their behaviour and showing examples on how to use them.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## System Context
 | |
| 
 | |
| The goal of this first section is to get familiar with the high-level concepts and technologies involved. The learning objectives here are:
 | |
| 
 | |
| - Describe the elements that compose OpenMetadata and their relationships.
 | |
| - How end-users and external applications can communicate with the system.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Here we have the main actors of the solution:
 | |
| 
 | |
| {% image
 | |
| src="/images/v1.5/main-concepts/high-level-design/system-context.png"
 | |
| alt="system-context" /%}
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| - **API**: This is the main pillar of OpenMetadata. Here we have defined how we can interact with the metadata Entities. 
 | |
|   It powers all the other components of the solution.
 | |
| - **UI**: Discovery-focused tool that helps users keep track of all the data assets in the organisation. Its goal is 
 | |
|   enabling and fueling collaboration.
 | |
| - **Ingestion Framework**: Based on the API specifications, this system is the foundation of all the Connectors, i.e., the 
 | |
|   components that define the interaction between OpenMetadata and external systems containing the metadata we want to integrate.
 | |
| - **Entity Store**: MySQL storage that contains real-time information on the state of all the Entities and their Relationships.
 | |
| - **Search Engine**: Powered by ElasticSearch, it is the indexing system for the UI to help users discover the metadata.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## JSON Schemas
 | |
| 
 | |
| If we abstract away from the Storage Layer for a moment, we then realize that the OpenMetadata implementation is the 
 | |
| integration of three blocks:
 | |
| 
 | |
| - The core **API**, unifying and centralising the communication with internal and external systems.
 | |
| - The **UI** for a team-centric metadata Serving Layer.
 | |
| - The **Ingestion Framework** as an Interface between OpenMetadata and external sources.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The only thing these components have in common is the **vocabulary** -> All of them are shaping, describing, and moving 
 | |
| around metadata Entities.
 | |
| 
 | |
| OpenMetadata is based on a **standard definition** for metadata. Therefore, we need to make sure that in our implementation
 | |
| of this standard we share this definition in the end-to-end workflow. To this end, the main lexicon is defined as JSON Schemas, 
 | |
| a readable and language-agnostic solution.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Then, when packaging the main components, we generate the specific programming classes for all the Entities.
 | |
| What we achieve is three views from the same source:
 | |
| 
 | |
| - Java Classes for the API,
 | |
| - Python Classes for the Ingestion Framework and
 | |
| - TypeScript Types for the UI,
 | |
| 
 | |
| each of them modeled after a single source of truth. Thanks to this approach we can be sure that it does not matter at
 | |
| which point we zoom in throughout the whole process, we are always going to find a univocal well-defined Entity.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## API Container Diagram
 | |
| 
 | |
| Now we are going to zoom inside the API Container. As the central Software System of the solution, its goal is to manage
 | |
| calls (both from internal and external sources, e.g., Ingestion Framework or any custom integration) and update the 
 | |
| state of the metadata Entities.
 | |
| 
 | |
| While the data is stored in the MySQL container, the API will be the one fetching it and completing the necessary 
 | |
| information, validating the Entities data and all the relationships.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Having a Serving Layer (API) decoupled from the Storage Layer allows users and integrations to ask for what they need 
 | |
| in a simple language (REST), without the learning curve of diving into specific data models and design choices.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| {% image
 | |
| src="/images/v1.5/main-concepts/high-level-design/api-container-diagram.png"
 | |
| alt="api-container-diagram" /%}
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Entity Resource
 | |
| 
 | |
| When we interact with most of our Entities, we follow the same endpoint structure. For example:
 | |
| 
 | |
| - `GET <url>/api/v1/<collectionName>/<id>` to retrieve an Entity instance by ID, or
 | |
| - `GET <url>/api/v1/<collectionName>/name/<FQN>` to query by its fully qualified domain name.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Similarly, we support other CRUD operations, each of them expecting a specific incoming data structure, and returning 
 | |
| the Entity's class. As the foundations of OpenMetadata are the Entities definitions, we have this data contract with 
 | |
| any consumer, where the backend will validate the received data, as well as the outputs.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The endpoint definition and datatype setting are what happens at the Entity Resource. Each metadata Entity is packed 
 | |
| with a Resource class, which builds the API definition for the given Entity.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This logic is what then surfaces in the [API docs](/swagger.html).
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Entity Repository
 | |
| 
 | |
| The goal of the Entity Repository is to perform Read & Write operations to the **backend database** to Create, Retrieve, 
 | |
| Update and Delete Entities.
 | |
| 
 | |
| While the Entity Resource handles external communication, the Repository is in charge of managing how the whole 
 | |
| process interacts with the Storage Layer, making sure that incoming and outgoing  Entities are valid and hold proper 
 | |
| and complete information.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This means that here is where we define our **DAO** (Data Access Object), with all the validation and data storage logic.
 | |
| 
 | |
| As there are processes repeated across all Entities (e.g., listing entities in a collection or getting a specific 
 | |
| version from an Entity), the Entity Repository extends an **Interface** that implements some basic functionalities and 
 | |
| abstracts Entity specific logic.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Each Entity then needs to implement its **server-side processes** such as building the FQN based on the Entity hierarchy, 
 | |
| how the Entity stores and retrieves **Relationship** information with other Entities or how the Entity reacts to **Change Events**.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Entity Storage Layer
 | |
| 
 | |
| In the API Container Diagram, we showed how the Entity Repository interacts with three different Storage Containers 
 | |
| (tables) depending on what type of information is being processed.
 | |
| 
 | |
| To fully understand this decision, we should first talk about the information contained by Entities instances.
 | |
| 
 | |
| An Entity has two types of fields: **attributes** (JSON Schema properties) and **relationships** (JSON Schema href):
 | |
| 
 | |
| - **Attributes** are the core properties of the Entity: the name and id, the columns for a table, or the algorithm 
 | |
|   for an ML Model. Those are intrinsic pieces of information of an Entity and their existence and values are what
 | |
|   help us differentiate both Entity instances (Table A vs. Table B) and Entity definitions (Dashboard vs. Topic).
 | |
| - **Relationships** are associations between two Entities. For example, a Table belongs to a Database, a User owns a 
 | |
|   Dashboard, etc. Relationships are a special type of attribute that is captured using Entity References.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Entity and Relationship Store
 | |
| 
 | |
| Entities are stored as JSON documents in the database. Each entity has an associated table (`<entityName>_entity`) which
 | |
| contains the JSON defining the Entity attributes and other metadata fields, such as the id, `updatedAt` or `updatedBy`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This JSON does not store any Relationship. E.g., a User owning a Dashboard is a piece of information that is materialised
 | |
| in a separate table entity_relationship as graph nodes, where the edge holds the type of the Relationship (e.g., `contains`,
 | |
| `uses`, `follows`...).
 | |
| 
 | |
| This separation helps us decouple concerns. We can process related entities independently and validate at runtime what 
 | |
| information needs to be updated and/or retrieved. For example, if we delete a Dashboard being owned by a User, we will then 
 | |
| clean up this row in `entity_relationship`, but that won't alter the information from the User.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Another trickier example would be trying to delete a Database that contains Tables. In this case, the process would check 
 | |
| that the Database Entity is not empty, and therefore we cannot continue with the removal.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Change Events Store
 | |
| 
 | |
| You might have already noticed that in all Entities definitions we have a `changeDescription` field. It is defined as 
 | |
| "Change that leads to this version of the entity". If we inspect further the properties of `changeDescription`, we can 
 | |
| see how it stores the differences between the current and last versions of an Entity.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This results in giving visibility on the last update step of each Entity instance. However, there might be times when 
 | |
| this level of tracking is not enough.
 | |
| 
 | |
| One of the greatest features of OpenMetadata is the ability to track all Entity versions. Each operation that leads 
 | |
| to a change (`PUT`, `POST`, `PATCH`) will generate a trace that is going to be stored in the table `change_event`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Using the API to get events data, or directly exploring the different versions of each entity gives great debugging 
 | |
| power to both data consumers and producers.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## API Component Diagram
 | |
| 
 | |
| Now that we have a clear picture of the main pieces and their roles, we will analyze the logical flow of a `POST` and a
 | |
| `PUT` calls to the API. The main goal of this section is to get familiar with the code organisation and its main steps.
 | |
| 
 | |
| {% note %}
 | |
| 
 | |
| To take the most out of this section, it is recommended to follow the source code as well, from the Entity JSON you'd
 | |
| like to use as an example to its implementation of Resource and Repository.
 | |
| 
 | |
| {% /note %}
 | |
| 
 | |
| ### Create a new Entity - POST
 | |
| 
 | |
| We will start with the simplest scenario: Creating a new Entity via a `POST` call. This is a great first point to review
 | |
| as part of the logic and methods are reused during updates.
 | |
| 
 | |
| {% image
 | |
| src="/images/v1.5/main-concepts/high-level-design/create-new-entity.png"
 | |
| alt="create-new-entity" /%}
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Create
 | |
| 
 | |
| As we already know, the recipient of the HTTP call will be the `EntityResource`. In there, we have the create function
 | |
| with the @POST annotation and the description of the API endpoint and expected schemas. 
 | |
| 
 | |
| The role of this first component is to receive the call and validate the request body and headers, but the real 
 | |
| implementation happens in the `EntityRepository`, which we already described as the **DAO**. For the `POST` operation, the 
 | |
| internal flow is rather simple and is composed of two steps:
 | |
| 
 | |
| - **Prepare**: Which validates the Entity data and computes some attributes at the server-side. 
 | |
| - **Store**: This saves the Entity JSON and its Relationships to the backend DB.
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Prepare
 | |
| 
 | |
| This method is used for validating an entity to be created during `POST`, `PUT`, and `PATCH` operations and preparing the 
 | |
| entity with all the required attributes and relationships.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Here we handle, for example, the process of setting up the FQN of an Entity based on its hierarchy. While all Entities
 | |
| require an FQN, this is not an attribute we expect to receive in a request.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Moreover, this checks that the received attributes are being correctly informed, e.g., we have a valid `User` as an `owner` 
 | |
| or a valid `Database` for a `Table`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Store
 | |
| 
 | |
| The storing process is divided into two different steps (as we have two tables holding the information).
 | |
| 
 | |
| We strip the validated Entity from any `href` attribute (such as `owner` or `tags`) in order to just store a JSON document 
 | |
| with the Entity intrinsic values.
 | |
| 
 | |
| We then store the graph representation of the Relationships for the attributes omitted above.
 | |
| 
 | |
| At the end of these calls, we end up with a validated Entity holding all the required attributes, 
 | |
| which have been validated and stored accordingly. We can then return the created Entity to the caller.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ### Create or Update an Entity - PUT
 | |
| 
 | |
| Let's now build on top of what we learned during the `POST` discussion, expanding the example to a `PUT` request handling.
 | |
| 
 | |
| {% image
 | |
| src="/images/v1.5/main-concepts/high-level-design/create-or-update.png"
 | |
| alt="create-update-entity" /%}
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| The first steps are fairly similar:
 | |
| 
 | |
| 1. We have a function in our `Resource` annotated as `@PUT` and handling headers, auth and schemas.
 | |
| 2. The `Resource` then calls the DAO at the Repository, bootstrapping the data-related logic.
 | |
| 3. We validate the Entity and cook some attributes during the prepare step.
 | |
| 
 | |
| After processing and validating the Entity request, we then check if the Entity instance has already been stored, 
 | |
| querying the backend database by its FQN. If it has not, then we proceed with the same logic as the `POST` 
 | |
| operation -> simple creation. Otherwise, we need to validate the updated fields.
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Set Fields
 | |
| 
 | |
| We cannot allow all fields to be updated for a given Entity instance. For example, the `id` or `name` stay immutable once 
 | |
| the instance is created, and the same thing happens to the `Database` of a `Table`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The list of specified fields that can change is defined at each Entity's Repository, and we should only allow changes 
 | |
| on those attributes that can naturally evolve throughout the lifecycle of the object.
 | |
| 
 | |
| At this step, we set the fields to the Entity that are either required by the JSON schema definition (e.g., 
 | |
| the algorithm for an `MlModel`) or, in the case of a `GET` operation, that are requested as
 | |
| `GET <url>/api/v1/<collectionName>/<id>?fields=field1,field2...`
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Update
 | |
| 
 | |
| In the `EntityRepository` there is an abstract implementation of the `EntityUpdater` interface, which is in charge of 
 | |
| defining the generic update logic flow common for all the Entities.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The main steps handled in the update calls are:
 | |
| 
 | |
| **1.** Update the Entity **generic** fields, such as the description or the owner.
 | |
| **2.** Run Entity **specific** updates, which are implemented by each Entity's `EntityUpdater` extension.
 | |
| **3.** **Store** the updated Entity JSON doc to the Entity Table in MySQL.
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Entity Specific Updates
 | |
| 
 | |
| Each Entity has a set of attributes that define it. These attributes are going to have a very specific behaviour, 
 | |
| so the implementation of the `update` logic falls to each Entity Repository.
 | |
| 
 | |
| For example, we can update the `Columns` of a `Table`, or the `Dashboard` holding the performance metrics of an `MlModel`. 
 | |
| Both of these changes are going to be treated differently, in terms of how the Entity performs internally the update, 
 | |
| how the Entity version gets affected, or the impact on the **Relationship** data.
 | |
| 
 | |
| For the sake of discussion, we'll follow a couple of update scenarios.
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Example 1 - Updating Columns of a Table
 | |
| 
 | |
| When updating `Columns`, we need to compare the existing set of columns in the original Entity vs. the incoming columns 
 | |
| of the `PUT` request.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If we are receiving an existing column, we might need to update its description or tags. This change will be 
 | |
| considered a minor change. Therefore, the version of the Entity will be bumped by 0.1, following the software 
 | |
| release specification model.
 | |
| 
 | |
| However, what happens if a stored column is not received in the updated instance? That would mean that such a column
 | |
| has been deleted. This is a type of change that could possibly break integrations on top of the `Table`'s data. 
 | |
| Therefore, we can mark this scenario as a major update. In this case, the version of the Entity will increase by `1.0`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Checking the Change Events or visiting the Entity history will easily show us the evolution of an Entity instance,
 | |
| which will be immensely valuable when debugging data issues.
 | |
| 
 | |
| #### Example 2 - Updating the Dashboard of an ML Model
 | |
| 
 | |
| One of the attributes for an MlModel is the `EntityReference` to a `Dashboard` holding its performance metrics evolution.
 | |
| 
 | |
| As this attribute is a reference to another existing Entity, this data is not directly stored in the `MlModel` JSON doc, 
 | |
| but rather as a Relationship graph, as we have been discussing previously. Therefore, during the update step we will need to:
 | |
| 
 | |
| **1.** Insert the relationship, if the original Entity had no `Dashboard` informed,
 | |
| **2.** Delete the relationship if the `Dashboard` has been removed, or
 | |
| **3.** Update the relationship if we now point to a different `Dashboard`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Note how during the `POST` operation we needed to always call the `storeRelationship` function, as it was the first 
 | |
| time we were storing the instance's information. During an update, we will just modify the Relationship data if the 
 | |
| Entity's specific attributes require it.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ## Handling Events
 | |
| 
 | |
| During all these discussions and examples we've been showing how the backend API handles HTTP requests and what the 
 | |
| Entities' data lifecycle is. Not only we've been focusing on the JSON docs and **Relationships**, but from time to time we 
 | |
| have talked about Change Events.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Moreover, In the API Container Diagram we drew a Container representing the `Table` holding the Change Event data, 
 | |
| but yet, we have not found any Component accessing it.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This is because the API server is powered by Jetty, which means that luckily we do not need to make those calls ourselves! 
 | |
| By defining a `ChangeEventHandler` and registering it during the creation of the server, this postprocessing of the calls 
 | |
| happens transparently.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Our `ChangeEventHandler` will check if the Entity has been `Created`, `Updated` or `Deleted` and will store the appropriate 
 | |
| `ChangeEvent` data from our response to the backend DB.
 | 
