https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/46800 -> there you go :) . Happy reviewing of 1570+ files changed.
BTW. It's way easier to review it with `git diff` than with Github UI :) On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 11:32 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Naaa. that one is super easy to implement and automate and it's better to > have one quick "surgical" cut to rename all of those :), I am about to send > PR with all of those changes in a moment. > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 11:26 AM Buğra Öztürk <ozturkbugr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Amazing!:) Maybe we can divide and conquer this on structure changes and >> pre-commit rather than leaving you with all :) >> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025, 10:45 Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> > > >> > >> >
