Separate message coming soon on the devlist :) On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:09 PM Kamil Breguła <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you show some code snippet? I am curious about this solution. > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I have bad news and good news :) > > > > Bad news - just making "providers" package an implicit one does not work > - > > when you mix implicit and explicit packages there are some problems. > Tools > > like pytest, mypy, pylint do not handle this well and think that > "google", > > "amazon" are top-level packages when analysing the sources. > > > > Good news - I managed to get providers packages for backporting work > > without having to change "providers" to implicit package. It was pretty > > much just a matter of filtering found packages in setup.py - I am > sending > > a PR shortly to enable that. I also managed to use breeze environment to > > test the backported packages with system tests (at least for GCP > operators > > where we have system test). > > > > We can therefore close the subject of implicit packages. We do not need > > them for now. Later we might want to convert to implicit packages but > this > > is something that might never happen. > > > > J, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:40 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Yep. Learning from the bigger move I will see how small is the > "smaller" > > > one I would love to see and can make informed decision. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:35 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Ah right okay, not an impossible task then. > > >> > > >> Still, I am very strongly in favour of the smallest change for the > goal > > >> (which is to allow back-ported providers to be installed on 1.10.x) - > both > > >> cos then most things are more normal, including code under a > provider, and > > >> then that way we don't have to fight our tools. > > >> On Feb 5 2020, at 12:08 pm, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > If we make every namespace under airflow.* implict, then we have > to > > >> ensure > > >> > > that our modules do not clash with _any and every_ possible top > level > > >> > > package that exists in PyPi, because we cannot know what might be > > >> installed > > >> > > by our users. That seems like an impossible feat. Have I > > >> mis-understood? > > >> > > If I haven't mis-understoond then I this is I think a strong > argument > > >> for > > >> > > _not_ making more than we absolutely have to an implicit > namepsace. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Nope. This is a problem for MyPy and Pytest only so mostly for our > > >> tooling. > > >> > And only if our own modules import packages with the same name as > the > > >> > module. So we are in full control here. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -a > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Jarek Potiuk > > >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > >> > > > >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > >> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
