Good question. I always found it confusing to have some providers at different level. Examples: - "airbyte" in "providers" directory (I would qualify it as "regular" provider) - "hive" in "providers/apache" - "amazon" in "providers" but which contains only one sub directory "aws"
I would be in favor of using "-" instead of "/" so that all providers are at the same level. On 2025/01/07 16:38:10 Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > +1 one to this on general terms, it will hopefully reduce a lot of the > boilerplate we need. > > As for the amazon/aws example specifically that does bring up a question, > should we have `/` or `-`.. to give some examples: > > cncf kubernetes: ./providers/cncf/kubernetes or ./providers/cncf-kubernetes > Apache hive: ./providers/apache/hive or ./providers/apache-hive > AWS: ./providers/amazon/aws or ./providers/amazon-aws > > There is no requirement from python etc on one form or the other (as it’s > just a folder, not part of the module name), so it’s what ever makes most > sense to us. > > Jarek and Dennis (and others): what are your preferences on these styles? > > -ash > > > On 6 Jan 2025, at 22:51, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > Oh. . And one other benefit of it will be that we will be able to get rid > > of about 40% of the "Providers Manager" code. Currently, in Providers > > manager we have a lot of "ifs" that make it possible to use providers in > > breeze and local environment from the sources. In "production" installation > > we are using "get_provider_info" entry points to discover providers and > > discover if provider is installed, but when you use current providers > > installed in Breeze to inside "airflow", we rely on `provider.yaml` to be > > present in the "airflow.providers.PROVIDER_ID" path - so we effectively > > have two paths of discovering information about the providers installed. > > > > After all providers are migrated to the new structure, all providers are > > separate "distributions" - and when you run `uv sync` (which will install > > all providers thanks to workspace feature) or `pip install -e > > ./providers/aws` (which you will have to do manually to work on the > > provider - if you use `pip` rather than uv) - then we will not have to use > > the separate path to read provider.yaml, because the right entrypoint for > > the provider will be installed as well - so we will be able to get rid of > > quite some code that is currently only used in airflow development > > environment. > > > > J. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 11:41 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > >> Those are very good questions :) > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 10:54 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis > >> <ferru...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> To clarify that I understand your diagram correctly, let's say you clone > >>> the Airflow repo to ~/workspace/airflow/. Does this mean that the AWS > >>> Glue > >>> Hook which used to live at > >>> ~/workspace/airflow/providers/amazon/aws/hooks/glue.py (as a random > >>> example) will be located at > >>> ~/workspace/airflow/providers/amazon/aws/src/airflow/providers/amazon/aws/hooks/glue.py? > >>> That feels unnecessarily repetitive to me, maybe it makes sense but I'm > >>> missing the context? > >>> > >> > >> Yes - it means that there is this repetitiveness but for a good reason - > >> those two "amazon/aws" serve different purpose: > >> > >> * The first "providers/amazon/aws" is just where the whole provider > >> "complete project" is stored - it's basically a directory where "aws > >> provider" is stored, a convenient folder to locate it in, that makes it > >> separate from other providers > >> * The second "src/airflow/providers/amazon/aws" - is the python > >> package where the source files is stored - this is how (inside the > >> sub-folder) you tell the actual python "import" to look for the sources. > >> > >> .What really matters is that (eventually) > >> `~/workspace/airflow/providers/amazon/aws/` can be treated as a completely > >> separate python project - a source of a "standalone" provider python > >> project. > >> There is a "pyproject.toml" file at the root of it and if you do this (for > >> example): > >> > >> cd providers/amazon/aws/ > >> uv sync > >> > >> And with it you will be able to work on AWS provider exclusively as a > >> separate project (this is not yet complete with the move - tests are not > >> entirely possible to run today - but it will be possible as next step - I > >> explained it in > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/45259#issuecomment-2572427916 > >> > >> This has a number of benefits, but one of them is that you will be able to > >> build provider by just running `build` command of your favourite > >> PEP-standard compliant frontend: > >> > >> cd providers/amazon/aws/ > >> `uv build` (or `hatch build` or `poetry build` or `flit build` ).... > >> > >> This will create the provider package inside the `dist" folder. I just > >> did it in my PR with `uv` in the first "airbyte` project: > >> > >> root@d74b3136d62f:/opt/airflow/providers/airbyte# uv build > >> Building source distribution... > >> Building wheel from source distribution... > >> Successfully built dist/apache_airflow_providers_airbyte-5.0.0.tar.gz > >> Successfully built > >> dist/apache_airflow_providers_airbyte-5.0.0-py3-none-any.whl > >> > >> That's it. That also allows cases like installing provider packages using > >> git URLs - which I used earlier today to test if the incoming PR of > >> pygments is actually solving the problem we had yesteday > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/45416 (basically we just make our > >> provider packages "standard" python packages that all the tools support. > >> Anyone who would like to install a commit, hash or branch version of the > >> "airbyte" package from main version of Airflow repo will be able to do: > >> > >> pip install "apache-airflow-providers-airbyte @ git+ > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow.git/providers/airbyte@COMMIT_ID"; > >> > >> Currently in order to create the package we need to manually extract the > >> "amazon" subtree, copy it elsewhere, prepare dynamically some files > >> (pyproject.toml, README.rst and few others) and only then we build the > >> package. All this - copying file structure, creating new files, running the > >> build command after and finally deleting the copied files is now - > >> dynamically and under-the-hood created by "breeze release-management > >> prepare-provider-packages" command. With this change, the directory > >> structure in `git` repo of ours is totally standard and allows us (and > >> anyone else) to build the package directly from it. > >> > >> > >> And what is the plan for system tests? As part of this reorganization, > >>> could they be moved into providers/{PROVIDER_ID}/tests/system? That seems > >>> more intuitive to me than their current location in > >>> providers/tests/system/{PROVIDER_ID}/example_foo.py. > >>> > >>> > >> Oh yeah - I missed that in the original structure as the "airbyte" > >> provider (that I chose as first one) did not contain the "system" tests - > >> but one of the two providers after that i was planning to make sure system > >> tests are covered. They are supposed to be moved to "tests/system" of > >> course - Elad had similar question and I also explained it in detail in > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/45259#issuecomment-2572427916 > >> > >> > >> I hope it answers the questions. If not - I am happy to add more > >> clarifications :) > >> > >> > >>> J. > >>> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
