airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From airflowuser <airflowu...@protonmail.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Deprecate contrib folder?
Date Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:22:40 GMT
Maybe a side issue but...
Why must specify each operator in it's own import?
Why can't we just something like do
from airflow import operators,hook

and all operators & hooks will become available.
We don't have that many and even looking forward to the future it's unlikely that it will
grow by hundreds.

Almost any package that I work with it's one import and that is it.
Airflow is very unique in the landscape sometimes I have 13 rows of imports :\

Having 1 import as mentioned above will prevent also cases of breaks when files are moved
from one path to another in the project.



Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 10:20 PM, Driesprong, Fokko <fokko@driesprong.frl> wrote:

> I'm in favor of removing the Contrib folder. It doesn't really add value in
> my opinion, and moving the hooks/operators will break the import. While
> DAG'ing I always have to look up if the operator is in contrib or not.
>
> Also, I think we should keep the operators and hooks part of the Airflow
> package. Having this separately will make the testing of the
> hooks/operators much more complicated. That being said, I do think we need
> to have more people on the project that "own" certain operators. Maybe keep
> a list of the authors as well (or reintroduce the Mention-bot
> https://github.com/facebookarchive/mention-bot ? Loved that bot).
>
> Cheers, Fokko
>
> Op za 13 apr. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Jarek Potiuk Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com:
>
> > I think there are quite a few contrib parts that are at least on-par with
> > regards to code quality, testing and especially documentation.
> > And yes, among those are GCP operators we developed which are not only unit
> > but also system-tested and we put quite an effort into making documentation
> > really useful and well structured ;).
> > I'd rather move those "graduated" operators/hooks to core and maybe rename
> > the "contrib" folder to "incubator" or something like that to indicate that
> > those operators are not yet "core-quality" but aspire to become one. That
> > would make a nice "intro" task for new contributors - to improve one of the
> > incubating operators to become "core-ready".
> > I am quite sceptical myself about AIP-8 and separating out the hooks and
> > operators. There were already few discussions about that, but splitting the
> > operators out might be quite difficult and it will only be possible if
> > there is some way to quickly test compatibility of those split operators
> > with various versions of Airflow and set of dependent requirements..
> > Otherwise it will very quickly become a mess - nobody will know which
> > version of Airflow is needed to run which operators and there will be
> > problems if someone will try to run different operators with different
> > requirements in the same DAG (and different versions of airflow).
> > Until we manage to isolate operators within the same DAG to potentially use
> > different dependencies, this is straight road to dependency-hell.
> > One solution to that that I have in mind for some time (but this is very
> > long term) might be to make Airflow Docker-native and run every operator
> > within it's own separate Docker instance with it's own dependencies. That
> > would be quite possible to do (we would need to split operators into very
> > light "proxy" (basically current init() - the part that is executed
> > within DAG scanning) and heavy "execute" parts (where the operator's
> > execute-related methods would be run in separate Docker on workers).
> > J.
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:59 AM Felix Uellendall <felix.uellendall@gmx.de
> >
> > >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on deprecating the contrib folder.
> > > Bolk de Bruin the reason the core hooks and operators are properly
> > > tested because, for example I added some more tests to it and I am
> > > "only" a contributor.
> > > So do you really want to split up contributors work and core committers
> > > work? I personally think this is not the right way to go.
> > > It is true that the contrib hooks and operators have not the same level
> > > of code quality but we can do something about it. I am trying to improve
> > > our test coverage overall and add missing tests.
> > > I don't think an extra step is needed here where we first move properly
> > > tested ones into the core package and then moving new ones from time to
> > > time into it. Wouldn't that mean that we think the code quality of
> > > "contrib" (contributor) in general is worse than the code quality of
> > > committers? Every new contributor who comes along this project would
> > > think that, wouldn't he?
> > > -feluelle
> > > Am 13/04/2019 um 07:51 schrieb Beau Barker:
> > >
> > > > A separate airflow-contrib repo, on a separate release cadence would be
> > > > my preference.
> > > >
> > > > > On 12 Apr 2019, at 11:17 pm, Julian De Ruiter <
> > > > > julianderuiter@godatadriven.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Isn’t this in contradiction with AIP-8, which is aimed at removing
> > > > > operators/hooks from the core Airflow package?
> > > >
> > > > > Personally I would rather remove hooks/operators from Airflow than
add
> > > > > even more to the Airflow core. This counts double for the contrib
stuff,
> > > > > which is often poorly designed and/or tested.
> > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Julian
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 12 Apr 2019, at 10:23, Bolke de Bruin bdbruin@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > That’s perfectly fine to me.
> > > > > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Op 12 apr. 2019 om 10:20 heeft Kaxil Naik kaxilnaik@gmail.com
het
> > > > > > > volgende geschreven:
> > > >
> > > > > > > Ok. How about moving the properly tested and maintained
hooks/ops
> > > > > > > from
> > >
> > > > > > > contrib to core?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 09:13 Bolke de Bruin bdbruin@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > I disagree. Core signals “properly tested” and
maintained. Ie. A
> > > > > > > > kind of
> > > >
> > > > > > > > quality. I don’t think contrib has that.
> > > > > > > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Op 12 apr. 2019 om 10:03 heeft Kaxil Naik kaxilnaik@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > het
> > >
> > > > > > > > volgende geschreven:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Contrib folder was used when it was used at Airbnb.
Currently, it
> > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > make any sense and we have equal responsibility
to maintain all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > >
> > > > > > > > hooks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > operators, sensors in contrib folder as we do
for core.
> > > > > > > > > I would suggest to remove contrib folder and
move all hooks, ops,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > sensors to the core folder.
> > > > > > > > > Or reorganize the folder structure similar to
what was discussed
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > >
> > > > > > > > > mailing thread few months ago.
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Kaxil
> >
> > --
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea https://www.polidea.com/ | Principal Software Engineer
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > E: jarek.potiuk@polidea.com



Mime
View raw message