My preference is for being “more direct” and not having deeply nested things where possible — I think Microsoft might be the one case where having extra folders makes sense. And I’m fine with things not being consistent across providers/groups of providers.
-ash > On 8 Jan 2025, at 17:18, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > Can you give an example of what might break why having > `providers/aapche-beam/src/airflow/providers/apache/beam`? > > Nothing will break. It's just: > > * the code will have to be a little more complex as it will have to do some > conditional writes of "-" "/" > * there will be inconsistency in the depth of folders - outside it will be > 1, inside it will be 2 (as it is in your example)/ > * it will be a bit more convention/ complex to limit related providers (say > microsoft) - with the current scheme "providers/microsoft" is the directory > containing all microsoft providers. If we change it to "-", you have to > find all sub-directories following "microsoft-*" convention. > > I am not super-strong on it - we could do either, it's just my preference > to use folders for grouping related things (as folders were designed for). > > J. > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 5:03 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> And we already have a number of mappings and conventions to handle that. >>> For example provider I'd mapping to dirs (apache.beam -> apache/beam), >> and >>> 'apache-airflow-providers-apache-beam' as package na e and >>> airflow/providers/apache/beam as packages inside the distribution. Those >>> will remain as they are - we cannot change them without breaking >>> compatibility. >> >> Can you give an example of what might break why having >> `providers/aapche-beam/src/airflow/providers/apache/beam`? >> >> -a >> >>> On 7 Jan 2025, at 18:33, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think it will be better to keep it. >>> >>> The reason we have varying levels were to group things together - mainly >>> Apache related providers, but also Microsoft. >>> >>> And we already have a number of mappings and conventions to handle that. >>> For example provider I'd mapping to dirs (apache.beam -> apache/beam), >> and >>> 'apache-airflow-providers-apache-beam' as package na e and >>> airflow/providers/apache/beam as packages inside the distribution. Those >>> will remain as they are - we cannot change them without breaking >>> compatibility. >>> >>> So if we change it to a flat structure we will have some inconsistencies >> - >>> in some cases it will be single folder in others (packages) those will be >>> two folders. >>> >>> I think it will be more harm than good if we get rid of the 'folder' >>> structures - some of the code in breeze will have to treat those >>> differently as well. Nothing extraordinary and very complex but more >>> complex-ish than it should be - already on top of handling potentially >>> nested folders >>> >>> So my preference would be to stay with apache/beam - it's just more >>> consistently handling the case where provider packages can be one-level >>> nested >>> >>> J >>> >>> >>> wt., 7 sty 2025, 19:00 użytkownik Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> >>> napisał: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
