potiuk edited a comment on pull request #12511:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/12511#issuecomment-731834869


   > I will take a look tomorrow. But this PR aimed to validate only prod 
image. And I think having this check in the same place where we run other 
validations for image makes sense. And it does not require an additional matrix 
= less jobs to run in parallel.
   
   I am afraid it has to be done in the matrix and using the upgraded 
constraints from CI builds.
   
   We have quite a different set of dependencies for different python versions. 
And if a pip check succeeds on one there is no guarantee it will succeed with 
the other. We also cannot upgrade the constraints when we are building the 
image for regular PRs - because of our transitive dependency problems.
   
   If we do this, then we go back to the situation we had where PRs start 
failing because someone released a new version of a transitive library we are 
using (remember werkzeug drama ?). 
   
   The constraint mechanism is specially designed to prevent this case. Do you 
remember the last time it happened recently for us ?  Probably not because we 
are preventing this from happening and the constraint mechanism does it.
   
   So we have to only run upgrade constraints in case of the "master 
push/schedule builds" and the constraints are now only really updated after all 
tests pass for them. And this is the perfect time to do the pip check - not 
sooner, not later. Because this is the moment where the constraints get 
updated. And we must do a pip check there, otherwise pip check will start 
failing in master after such constraint push. So we really have to do the 
pip-check just before we push updated constraints.


----------------------------------------------------------------
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]


Reply via email to