I've managed to get type stubs working in VSCode (and intellij), so that may be
an option.
TBH I think I'm leaning somewhat towards 5 -- after all that would then go some
way to clarify the distinction between DAG and DagModel (i.e. DAG doesn't
belong in models, it's not a DB model)
On Feb 23 2020, at 10:15 pm, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Just have a deprecation warning (which it's not even clear if PEP-562
> style will show a nice (!) warning in IDEs or just at run time
> 2. I learn to live with from airflow.models.dag import DAG
> 3. After we change airflow.models to not import all the sub-modules
> automatically, go back to importing "airflow.models.dag.DAG" into "airflow".
> 4. We create a new (abstract) base class that we _can_ import in to the
> airflow module that airflow.models.dag.DAG extends. This could be automated
> by a pre-commit so it is always up to date with the real DAG class
> 5. We create a new module of things that are part of the public/dag
> author API, such as airflow.dag (currently just has a "BaseDAG" sub-module
> but that is barely used, and only by the scheduler so could be removed)
>
>
> Happy with (3) and/or (5)
> (1) does not work with Pycharm - it doesn't show deprecation warning.
> ᐧ
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:10 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Gah not only that, vscode also ignores __all__ settings which is really
> > bad form.
> >
> > Pycharm at least does respect __all__ for what to show in the module, and
> > also respects type stub files (.pyi) when completing constructor args etc.
> > In short IDEs are terrible at dynamic languages, but it is what it is.
> > So a few options then:
> > Just have a deprecation warning (which it's not even clear if PEP-562
> > style will show a nice (!) warning in IDEs or just at run time
> > I learn to live with from airflow.models.dag import DAG
> >
> > After we change airflow.models to not import all the sub-modules
> > automatically, go back to importing "airflow.models.dag.DAG" into "airflow".
> >
> > We create a new (abstract) base class that we _can_ import in to the
> > airflow module that airflow.models.dag.DAG extends. This could be automated
> > by a pre-commit so it is always up to date with the real DAG class
> >
> > We create a new module of things that are part of the public/dag author
> > API, such as airflow.dag (currently just has a "BaseDAG" sub-module but
> > that is barely used, and only by the scheduler so could be removed)
> >
> > Anyone have any strong opinions? I think I'd favour 3, 4 or 5
> > -ash
> > On Feb 22 2020, at 10:50 pm, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I tried an example with PEP-562 but the autocomplete didn't work in
> >
> > Pycharm
> > > and still showed the deprecated function.
> > >
> > > I agree we should have a deprecation warning before we should have
> > changed
> > > it. How about we introduce a deprecation warning in the next version
> > > (1.10.10) ?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kaxil
> > > ᐧ
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I also started to use VSCode in parallel on my Chromebook as this is
> > the
> > > > best way to get devenv running there (and I believe it's now THE most
> > > > popular IDE - including for Python developers). I can check it there as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:33 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Right -> the same. Happy to double check with your POC :)
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:16 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a very good point about IDE's, I'll double check how PyCharm
> > > > > behaves (Guessing PyCharm is the most popular one? PyCharm and
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > IntelliJ
> > > >
> > > > are
> > > > > the same engine under the hood, right?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -a
> > > > > > On Feb 22 2020, at 4:58 pm, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > My proposal here:
> > > > > > > > Add in a _getattr_ based lazy import for DAG to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > airflow/__init__.py
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > module
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am all for it - if we can do it in this way, then it is indeed
> > > > > > > better for the users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do NOT issue a deprecation warning for this.
> > > > > > > > Revert the change to all the imports in example dags etc so
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > those do from airflow import DAG.
> > > > > > > I would only be for it if the PEP-562 change works fine with IDE
> > > > > > > support. Many of our users use IDEs to write their DAGsand they
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > can
> > > > > > > get confused where to import the DAGs from. If the PEP-562 works
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > fine
> > > > > > > with the IDEs, and they are smart enough to figure this out, I
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > am ok
> > > > > > > with that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On a related note - I fully agree with the "clear API" approach
> > for
> > > > > > > DAG developers. We did not have clear rules for that so far.
> > > > > > > Eventually (I think 2.0 is good time for that) we should have a
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > clear
> > > > > > > statement what really the API is for DAG writers. We should
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > issue at
> > > > > > > first a deprecation warning and then error if someone tries to
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > use
> > > > > > > something not explicitly allowed from the DAG. It should not be a
> > > > > > > convention ("from airflow.* is allowed in documentation"). It
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > should
> > > > > > > be enforcement. We can do it in scheduler - as we are parsing the
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAGs
> > > > > > > on our own and we can find out what imports the users are using.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > We
> > > > > > > could even think about adding those deprecations in 2.0. There
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > are
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > not
> > > > > > > that many things that should be importable from 'airflow.*'. And
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > that
> > > > > > > should be rather easy - I am playing now with AST parser and it
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > is
> > > > > > > rather straightforward - we just need to generate list of
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > "allowed"
> > > > > > > imports .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (I'm less worried about the internal API airflow users
> > internally,
> > > > > so airflow.models.TaskInstance vs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > airflow.models.task_instance.TaskInstance
> > > > > is okay for me. I find the later uglier but if it doesn't affect
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > users I
> > > > > don't mind it)
> > > > > > > > Ash
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
>
>
