airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ash Berlin-Taylor <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: API Reference - current confusion and improvement plan
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2019 20:33:38 GMT
I have idly wondered about something like this as a layout

    from airflow.$something.aws.operators import EmrAddStepOperator

- Grouping by service provider is more helpful
- Having more than one operator per module
- Not having `_operator` (etc.) suffix on the modue, and the class, and the module path

Perhaps a bigger change - though to make it much less painful on our users we could keep the
old names with a deprecation warning or two (even past 2.0, to say 2.1) Out of scope for current
discussion.

-ash

> On 5 Feb 2019, at 20:22, Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com> wrote:
> 
> I think that we should group operators by service (ex. Amazon Web Service:
> Simple Cloud Storage). One module to one service. it will be much easier to
> navigate through them. A similar problem occurs with the Google Cloud
> Storage service, but we have a solution (PR:
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/3000 ). A large part and future
> operators, which are written in accordance with the recommendations (
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e8534d82be611ae7bcb21ba371546a4278aad117d5e50361fd8f14fe@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E),
> follow these rules.
> 
> The problem will be with operators that integrate two services at the same
> time. I think that we can leave them in a separate module and link to this
> class in the description of the module.
> 
> However, this is not a current problem. I just wanted to mark future
> improvements, which is possible if we introduce the proposed solution.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:57 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> I like the API reference v2 layout a lot! Much easier to navigate and see
>> what classes are available, for me at least
>> 
>> Documenting modules will help somewhat with a few things but, lets say the
>> "AWS" section of the integration doc is across the following modules:
>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.aws_athena_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/aws_athena_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.awsbatch_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/awsbatch_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.ecs_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/ecs_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.emr_add_steps_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/emr_add_steps_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.emr_create_job_flow_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/emr_create_job_flow_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.emr_terminate_job_flow_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/emr_terminate_job_flow_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.s3_copy_object_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/s3_copy_object_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.s3_delete_objects_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/s3_delete_objects_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.s3_list_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/s3_list_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.s3_to_gcs_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/s3_to_gcs_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.s3_to_gcs_transfer_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/s3_to_gcs_transfer_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.s3_to_sftp_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/s3_to_sftp_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_base_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_base_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_endpoint_config_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_endpoint_config_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_endpoint_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_endpoint_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_model_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_model_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_training_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_training_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_transform_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_transform_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.sagemaker_tuning_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/sagemaker_tuning_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.operators.segment_track_event_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/operators/segment_track_event_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.operators.redshift_to_s3_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/operators/redshift_to_s3_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.operators.s3_file_transform_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/operators/s3_file_transform_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.operators.s3_to_hive_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/operators/s3_to_hive_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.operators.s3_to_redshift_operator <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/operators/s3_to_redshift_operator/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.sensors.s3_key_sensor <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/sensors/s3_key_sensor/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.sensors.s3_prefix_sensor <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/sensors/s3_prefix_sensor/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.sensors.emr_base_sensor <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/sensors/emr_base_sensor/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.sensors.emr_job_flow_sensor <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/sensors/emr_job_flow_sensor/index.html
>>> 
>> airflow.contrib.sensors.emr_step_sensor <
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/contrib/sensors/emr_step_sensor/index.html
>>> 
>> 
>> And that was just before I got bored of looking for them :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5 Feb 2019, at 16:25, Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I already have a POC: :-)
>>> 
>>> Available at: http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/index.html
>>> 
>>> I would like to point out that in addition to class documentation, you
>> can
>>> also document modules.
>>> 
>> http://level-can.surge.sh/html/autoapi/airflow/executors/local_executor/index.html
>>> Currently, the `howto/operators.rst` file is used for this (Related link:
>>> 
>> https://airflow.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howto/operator.html#cloudsqlqueryoperator
>>> )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:18 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> We want to rewrite the `integration.rst` file so that it does not
>> contain
>>>>> duplicates from `code.rst ' (API Reference). In the next step,
>> introduce
>>>>> the reference API generation based on the source code that will replace
>>>> the
>>>>> `code.rst` file.
>>>> 
>>>> :100: Yes please!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Given a number of integrations are across multiple files (n operators,
>> and
>>>> m hooks) my first thought is that something in integration.rst, or a
>> file
>>>> elsewhere in the docs/ tree is the place to put this.
>>>> 
>>>> On epydoc vs a sphinx extension I lean very heavily towards the sphinx
>>>> extension, as we are already using much of sphinx.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you create a _small_ example of what you'd propse for no.4 (I don't
>>>> want you to do a lot of work that might be wasted)
>>>> 
>>>> -ash
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5 Feb 2019, at 15:55, Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello community,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While working on the documentation for the GCP operators, my team at
>>>>> Polidea encountered some confusion related to the structure of the
>>>>> documentation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Short story:
>>>>> 
>>>>> We want to rewrite the `integration.rst` file so that it does not
>> contain
>>>>> duplicates from `code.rst ' (API Reference). In the next step,
>> introduce
>>>>> the reference API generation based on the source code that will replace
>>>> the
>>>>> `code.rst` file.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Long story:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently, the documentation contains two places where the description
>> of
>>>>> classes related to operators is included. They are `code.rst` and
>>>>> `integration.rst` files.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The `integration.rst` file contains information about integration, in
>>>>> particular for Azure: Microsoft Azure, AWS: Amazon Web Services,
>>>>> Databricks, GCP: Google Cloud Platform, Qubole. Other integrations,
>>>>> however, do not have descriptions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The `code.rst` file contains “API Reference” which contains information
>>>>> about *all* classes including those included in the file
>>>> `integration.rst`.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Such duplication, however, is problematic for several reasons:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Users may feel lost and may not know which section they should look
>>>> into.
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Changes must be made in many places which leads to desynchronization.
>>>>> Most often, changes are made only in the source code, so they do not
>>>> appear
>>>>> in the generated documentation.
>>>>> 3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Linking to classes using the `class` directive for Sphinx is
>>>>> inconclusive - if the code is embedded both in `integration.rst` and
>>>>> `code.rst` using the `autoclass` directive, we’re not sure where the
>>>> user
>>>>> will be navigated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are several solutions::
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Leave it as is. Then we need to agree on which `autoclass` directive
>>>>> should have the `no-index` flags.
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Delete duplicates from the `code.rst` file and add a note about the
>>>>> `integration.rst` file in the `code.rst` file.
>>>>> 3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Delete duplicates from the `integration.rst` file and add a note about
>>>>> the `code.rst` file in the `integration.rst` file.
>>>>> 4.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Delete information from both files and generate the API documentation
>>>>> always based only on the source code. This solution means that we
>> would
>>>>> have to write less documentation.
>>>>> There are ready tools that we can use:
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    epydoc - http://epydoc.sourceforge.net/ ;
>>>>>    2.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    autoapi extension for Sphinx -
>>>> https://github.com/rtfd/sphinx-autoapi
>>>>>    ;
>>>>>    3.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    other - https://wiki.python.org/moin/DocumentationTools
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first, second, third solution does not solve all problems. In
>>>>> particular, we still need to complete the `code.rst` and
>>>> `integration.rst`
>>>>> files. The fourth solution solves all problems, but is the most
>> complex.
>>>> It
>>>>> is worth noting that mixing solutions is possible. For example, we can
>>>>> delete information from the file `integration.rst` as short term
>> solution
>>>>> and start working on creating another form of documentation as a long
>>>> term
>>>>> solution. This is the best option in our opinion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve recently done a few activities related to this topic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> First, I added the noindex flag to autoclass directives for all
>> operators
>>>>> in `integration.rst` file. In rare cases (If any), this caused links
>> that
>>>>> were previously directed to the file `integration.rst` to be redirected
>>>> to
>>>>> the `code.rst` file. Elements had to be linked using `:class:` instead
>>>> of a
>>>>> section link. Each operator is included in the new section in this
>> file.
>>>>> 
>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4585
>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4585/files>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Second, I completed the `code.rst` file with the missing classes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/4644
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to ask which solution is the best in your opinion? What
>>>> steps
>>>>> should we take to make the documentation more enjoyable?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greetings
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kamil Breguła
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Kamil Breguła
>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
>>> 
>>> M: +48 505 458 451 <+48505458451>
>>> E: kamil.bregula@polidea.com
>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>> 
>>> We create human & business stories through technology.
>>> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
>>> [image: Github] <https://github.com/Polidea> [image: Facebook]
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/Polidea.Software> [image: Twitter]
>>> <https://twitter.com/polidea> [image: Linkedin]
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/polidea> [image: Instagram]
>>> <https://instagram.com/polidea> [image: Behance]
>>> <https://www.behance.net/polidea>
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kamil Breguła
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> 
> M: +48 505 458 451 <+48505458451>
> E: kamil.bregula@polidea.com
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> 
> We create human & business stories through technology.
> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> [image: Github] <https://github.com/Polidea> [image: Facebook]
> <https://www.facebook.com/Polidea.Software> [image: Twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/polidea> [image: Linkedin]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/polidea> [image: Instagram]
> <https://instagram.com/polidea> [image: Behance]
> <https://www.behance.net/polidea>


Mime
View raw message