Airbyte is an open-source data integration engine that helps you consolidate your data in your data warehouses, lakes and databases.

Airbyte

It seems that `Airbyte CI / Connectors Base: Build (push)` is consistently failing on Master. :thread:

Here's a recent build failure <https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/actions/runs/3277761497/jobs/5395417617>

<https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/actions/runs/3277761497/jobs/5395417617#step:12:8884>

```	 collecting ... 
	 ――――――――――――――― ERROR collecting test_backward_compatibility.py ――――――――――――――――
	 unit_tests/test_backward_compatibility.py:998: in &lt;module&gt;
	     "test_stream": AirbyteStream.parse_obj(
	 pydantic/main.py:521: in pydantic.main.BaseModel.parse_obj
	     ???
	 pydantic/main.py:341: in pydantic.main.BaseModel.__init__
	     ???
	 E   pydantic.error_wrappers.ValidationError: 1 validation error for AirbyteStream
	 E   supported_sync_modes
	 E     field required (type=value_error.missing)
	 
	 ―――――――――――――――――――――――― ERROR collecting test_core.py ―――――――――――――――――――――――――
	 unit_tests/test_core.py:125: in &lt;module&gt;
	     ???
	 pydantic/main.py:521: in pydantic.main.BaseModel.parse_obj
	     ???
	 pydantic/main.py:341: in pydantic.main.BaseModel.__init__
	     ???
	 E   pydantic.error_wrappers.ValidationError: 1 validation error for AirbyteStream
	 E   supported_sync_modes
	 E     field required (type=value_error.missing)
	 ```
This looks related to the protocol changes <@U02UC3T12PJ> was making?

I am seeing this today as well when running tests on bases/base-normalization

This should be resolved now that I merged the protocol change PR and the updated SAT unit tests are now on master

Do I need to rebase my PR to resolve this?

The root cause is the following:
• I published a new version of the CDK from my branch
• SAT unit tests on master installed this new CDK version as a dependency with updated models, but SAT instantiated invalid model according to the new CDK
• The changes on SAT were made on my branch, it's merged to master now so it should be solved

Sorry for the inconvenience, it was quite tricky to figure the best way to orchestrate this change without breaking anything

Thanks <@U02UC3T12PJ>!  Can you share this note in <#C02U2SSHP9S|dev> as well please