Yeah "unit" seems to be the way to go :) . I will make another giant PR (but this time it should be even easier to review) to convert to it :)
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 10:41 AM Buğra Öztürk <ozturkbugr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for all the effort on this! It looks great! > - The approach looks great! > - Heavy plus one on this. The pre-commit should be one of the ground > pillars of any standardisation. Having an extra file structure check could > be included too on top of `from` to eliminate new providers to follow the > consistent structure. > - I like the unit too over provider_tests. It is a great idea to eliminate > ambiguity. The other parts seem pretty pretty good. > > Along with the latest improvements, these will be great additions! > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 4:15 AM Rahul Vats <rah.sharm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the detailed explanation and for driving this effort—it looks > > like a solid improvement. > > > > 1. > > > > I love the approach & new structure. I can't think of a better > approach. > > 2. > > > > I agree that adding a pre-commit check to enforce consistent imports > is > > a good idea. It will help maintain the new structure and prevent > > regressions. > > 3. > > > > For the naming, I’d prefer using unit instead of provider_tests to > keep > > it more intuitive and consistent with system and integration. This > makes > > the structure self-explanatory and easier for new contributors. > > > > > > Regards, > > Rahul Vats > > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 at 03:50, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2) no real opinion, seems useful. Let’s see if we can do it with a > ruff > > > rule first? It _might_ be possible. (It is possible to extend the ruff > > > rules on a per subproject basis, check out task_sdk/pyproject.toml) > > > > > > I am not sure if we need ruff rule for it, as we have not yet enabled > any > > > `ruff` airflow rules in airflow development (it is targeted so far for > > > users writing DAGs} > > > > > > I think it's more "airflow internal" rule not something that can be > used > > > for general audience (which is pretty-much what ruff rules are about) > > > > > > Unfortunately - the current way ruff works does not allow local > > > "plugin" functionality to add new rules that would only be applicable > to > > > the current project you are in. In the absence of that feature, having > a > > > python pre-commit seem the next-best thing. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 10:50 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > 100%. It’s on my list to tackle very soon, it can’t get put off much > > > > longer. > > > > > > > > I have some thoughts (around back compat mostly) but they aren’t > > > collected > > > > yet, and I won’t derail this thread. > > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb 2025, at 21:43, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > cc: @ashb @uranusjr @kaxil -> something for consideration in our > > > > > discussions on how to repackage airlfow soon. I keep on explaining > > why > > > > > running code in airflow.__init__.py is a bad idea and advocating > for > > > > > removal of it and replace it with explicit initialization, yet that > > > topic > > > > > have not been discussed yet, but I will plan to start a discussion > > > about > > > > it > > > > > soon once we approach the packaging subject. I am not sure what's > > your > > > > > thinking is about this - I know you spent consirderable amount of > > time > > > on > > > > > doing all the "lazy initalization" dance all over the places, and I > > > think > > > > > it adds a lot of complexity to our code and only partially solves > the > > > > > cicular imports problem. But I know @ashb has very strong feeling > > about > > > > > being able to do "from airlfow import Dag" - which more or less > > > requires > > > > > all this complexity. I just don't think it's worth it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Bugra Ozturk >
