Yeah, And I would encourage everyone to try it and provide feedback while it is enabled.
So far we identified a few things (and fix them) that made it borderline unusable (bug in workflow for UI-only changes, GitHub starting to 429-us with too many requests, and the mysterious "hanging" of the latest botocore/celery (?) "special tests" -> all that is already addressed in main, and those issues should not happen (hopefully), so I'd say we can now "truly" see how it might work. And one comment from my side - indeed, I find it nice actually, but it's definitely not a "deal breaker"- so if others find it too disruptive, I am definitely not going to die on this hill, I just thought it does improve the workflow in the way that it allows for mostly "fire and forget" when you approve the workflow, one thing that it definitely improves is that you do not have to remember about coming back to merge a request when CI succeeds. J. On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:58 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > Forgot to note an additional point in Summary: If we find anything blocking > us in that period, we will merge > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009 to disable auto-merge. > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 14:26, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jarek & I discussed it on Slack in #internal-airflow-ci-cd. Summary > below: > > > > I have a PR to disable it: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/50009. > > However, given that many countries will be on holiday on May 1 due to > > Labour Day, and some teething issues were fixed yesterday, we will let it > > run for a few more days so other committers and contributors can get a > > chance to try it out and share their experience after the > experiment/trial > > is concluded. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 13:59, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Whoops yeah. > >> > >> >Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also have > >> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection > >> conditions. > >> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically. > >> > >> Let's adapt it when ready though, I don't see any urgency of getting > >> enabling auto-merge or getting it contributed immediately to asf INFRA > when > >> it isn't critical. It is about priortization > >> > >> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature > rather > >>> than outright reject it. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:37, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:55 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > To the point that the original PR is still not merged even after I > had > >>> > re-triggered the failed tests yesterday: > >>> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Yep. Because it did not have all conversations resolved. We also have > >>> "require resolved conversation" as one of the branch protection > >>> conditions. > >>> I resolved the conversation and it got merged automatically. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > The gitbox escape hatch isn't it though -- if we are to allow that > >>> why > >>> > not > >>> > > just allow people to merge it directly from github that to go via > an > >>> > > "escape hatch". > >>> > > >>> > >>> Generally speaking GitHub has this option. Currently "admins" have a > >>> possibility of overriding branch protection (via UI). And it would be > >>> possible - if INFRA will allow it - to possibly add an .asf.yaml > feature > >>> to > >>> also allow branch protection override for all committers or a subset of > >>> the > >>> committers (PMC Members ? ). This is more of a limitation of the > current > >>> implementation of permissions than a missing feature. If we all feel > that > >>> the gitbox escape hatch is not enough, we can likely even contribute > >>> such a > >>> feature to .asf.yaml - if INFRA will be ok with the option. It's very > >>> easy > >>> to contribute to - INFRA made it possible, we have a new framework: > >>> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-asfyaml - we can even > implement > >>> "airflow-only" .asf.yaml feature, that will not be initially available > to > >>> other ASF projects and later we can promote it to be available to > >>> everyone. > >>> > >>> I'd say - if that is really bothering us - let's shape the feature > rather > >>> than outright reject it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I am -1 on this auto-merge feature > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> Understood :). But let's give it a bit more time as well and maybe > >>> improve > >>> it (see above) - unless we really feel we are blocked now - then it > >>> should > >>> be as easy as merging an .asf.yaml change to disable it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 11:18, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >> That’s not a single person, it impacts the committers and the PR > >>> author > >>> > >> involved too. I don’t see how team productivity soars here. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 02:39, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> But yes, I also miss the previous "merge because I think it's > safe" > >>> > >>> workflow. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I badly miss it. Personally, It hurts my productivity. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> But I think the "require status check" to be green is great for > >>> "team > >>> > >>> productivity". Usually when single person is impacted more than > >>> team in > >>> > >>> general, it's worse for the person impacted, but team > productivity > >>> > soars. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> J. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:03 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Just to add comment: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > a) there was some instability of "celery/boto" hanging tests > >>> today > >>> > >>> that is > >>> > >>> > rather difficult to address - but we worked around it by just > >>> > removing > >>> > >>> > "special-tests" from pre-requisite of merging > >>> > >>> > b) GitHub today (like literally today!) started to be picky on > >>> "too > >>> > >>> many > >>> > >>> > requests" - I addressed it today for both helm chart and our > >>> release > >>> > >>> tests > >>> > >>> > (we are using bearer-token to authenticate and increase the > >>> limit - > >>> > >>> and we > >>> > >>> > added cache on downloading json schema that was downloaded > >>> "per-test" > >>> > >>> > c) in cases like the one mentioned above with intermittent > >>> failures - > >>> > >>> > simple "rerun failed jobs" (assuming it will succeed after > >>> rerun) - > >>> > is > >>> > >>> > essentially equivalent of "merge" (unless it fails again which > >>> for me > >>> > >>> is a > >>> > >>> > signal of "DO NOT MERGE") > >>> > >>> > d) we always have the "gitbox" escape hatch - that allows any > >>> > >>> committer to > >>> > >>> > push the fix directly, bypassing the limits: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > This is a simple thing for committers: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > git add remote gitbox > >>> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/airflow.git > >>> > >>> > git fetch gitbox > >>> > >>> > git commit --amend ("add #PR number") > >>> > >>> > git push gitbox BRANCH_NAME:main (you need to provide your > >>> apache id > >>> > >>> and > >>> > >>> > password) > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > This is a nice escape hatch that we can use as "exceptional > >>> > workflow" - > >>> > >>> > and it works - I did it quite a few times over the last few > >>> days. Not > >>> > >>> UI > >>> > >>> > controlled, but IMHO exceptional workflow should be - well - > >>> > >>> exceptional. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > J. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kaxil Naik < > kaxiln...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> Similar experience as Elad, I am in favor of disabling it tbh. > >>> For > >>> > >>> >> example, > >>> > >>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49727 has a failing > >>> test as > >>> > >>> below > >>> > >>> >> -- > >>> > >>> >> which is not an issue, and test passes locally so I would want > >>> to > >>> > >>> merge it > >>> > >>> >> but I can't. > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> FAILED > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > helm-tests/tests/helm_tests/airflow_aux/test_basic_helm_chart.py::TestBaseChartTest::test_priority_classes > >>> > >>> >> - requests.exceptions.HTTPError: 429 Client Error: Too Many > >>> Requests > >>> > >>> for > >>> > >>> >> url: > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yannh/kubernetes-json-schema/master/v1.29.1-standalone-strict/priorityclass-scheduling-v1.json > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:46 PM Elad Kalif < > >>> elad...@apache.org> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > > Thanks for that Jarek! > >>> > >>> >> > > I find the lack of ability to merge PRs fast very limiting > >>> but > >>> > it > >>> > >>> >> might > >>> > >>> >> > be > >>> > >>> >> > > just something to get used to. > >>> > >>> >> > > > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > Indeed. I also see it, but also I got a few manually pushed > >>> "must > >>> > >>> fix > >>> > >>> >> > quickly" to gitbox, and actually I find it really nice - > >>> because > >>> > it > >>> > >>> is > >>> > >>> >> > still possible, but it require some extra effort and > >>> deliberate > >>> > "ok > >>> > >>> that > >>> > >>> >> > one really should be pushed to unblock everyone" - as long > as > >>> we > >>> > all > >>> > >>> >> > (especially those people that are active in the > >>> > >>> >> > #internal-airfow-ci-cd channel) know how to do it and can > fix > >>> > things > >>> > >>> >> > quickly, this is actually a nice way to make it into > >>> "exceptional" > >>> > >>> >> workflow > >>> > >>> >> > - which will push us more in making sure airflow main is > >>> really > >>> > >>> "green" > >>> > >>> >> - > >>> > >>> >> > which ultimately is our goal to make it as green as possible > >>> all > >>> > the > >>> > >>> >> time. > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > What **might help with that** (and also keeping the "enable > >>> auto > >>> > >>> merge" > >>> > >>> >> > might motivate it more to) is to: > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > * speed up the builds - we MUST prioritise now ARC (K8S > >>> > self-hosted > >>> > >>> >> > runners) to make our builds simply faster - I started a > >>> discussion > >>> > >>> and a > >>> > >>> >> > small group of people who can work together to complete it > >>> after > >>> > >>> >> Hussein's > >>> > >>> >> > POC) > >>> > >>> >> > * speed up the image release - with ARM runners (which we > >>> might be > >>> > >>> able > >>> > >>> >> to > >>> > >>> >> > do independently as recently I think we have > >>> hypervisor-enabled > >>> > ARM > >>> > >>> >> images > >>> > >>> >> > available as public runners as github made it generally > >>> > available). > >>> > >>> >> > * speed up the doc builds for airflow-site - we (mainly > >>> Pavan) are > >>> > >>> >> close to > >>> > >>> >> > complete offloading of the historical release docs to S3 > and I > >>> > hope > >>> > >>> it > >>> > >>> >> will > >>> > >>> >> > cut down a lot on doc publishing workflows. > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > J, > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > > >>> > >> >
