potiuk commented on a change in pull request #12466:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/12466#discussion_r526511344
##########
File path: airflow/provider.yaml.schema.json
##########
@@ -17,6 +17,11 @@
"type": "string"
}
},
+ "provider-package": {
Review comment:
@ashb @mik-laj -> this is also for preparation to be able to use
3rd-party providers. I've added provider-package to the provider.yaml to avoid
repetition and made all modules/classes relative. This way it is really safe -
because we will not be able to point accidentally to a class outside of our own
package.
I also added a check if provider package is properly named bu also if it
starts with "airflow.providers".
Currently we only support airflow.providers anyway.
It might be good to discuss now and agree future conventions for those
3rd-parties eventually
1) are we allowing any package to contain provider?
If not:
2a) should all providers live in airflow.providers
2b) should they live in airflow.contrib.providers (or similar)
if 2a) and 2b) - > should we allow the packages to be named not following
the convention :
apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER> (with '.' replaced by -).
OR maybe some other approach? WDYT?
WDYT?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
