It’s not just release time, but any time we build a package which happens on “every” CI run. The normal unit tests will use code from airflow-common/src/airflow_common; the kube tests which build an image will build the dists and vendor in the code from that commit.
There is only a single copy of the shared code committed to the repo, so there is never anything to synchronise. > On 4 Jul 2025, at 15:53, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Ash. > > This is really cool and helpful that you were able to test both scenarios > -- repo checkout > and also installing from the vendored package and the resolution worked > fine too. > > I like this idea compared the to relative import one for few reasons: > - It feels like it will take some time to adjust to the new coding standard > that we will lay > if we impose relative imports in the shared dist > - We can continue using repo wise absolute import standards, it is also > much easier for situations > when we do global search in IDE to find + replace, this could mean a change > there > - The vendoring work is a proven and established paradigm across projects > and would > out of box give us the build tooling we need also > > Nothing too against the relative import but with the evidence provided > above, vendored approach > seems to only do us good. > > Regarding synchronizing it, release time should be fine as long as we have > a good CI workflow to probably > catch such issues per PR if changes are made in shared dist? (precommit > would make it really slow i guess) > > If we can run our tests with vendored code we should be mostly covered. > > Good effort all! > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:23 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Okay, I think I’ve got something that works and I’m happy with. >> >> >> https://github.com/astronomer/airflow/tree/shared-vendored-lib-tasksdk-and-core >> >> This produces the following from `uv build task-sdk` >> - >> https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21058976/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0.tar.gz >> - >> https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21058996/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.zip >> >> (`.whl.zip` as GH won't allow .whl upload, but will .zip) >> >> ``` >> ❯ unzip -l dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.zip | grep >> _vendor >> 50 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/.gitignore >> 2082 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py >> 28 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common.pyi >> 18 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/vendor.txt >> 785 02-02-2020 00:00 >> airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/__init__.py >> 10628 02-02-2020 00:00 >> airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py >> ``` >> >> And similarly in the .tar.gz, so our “sdist” is complete too: >> ``` >> ❯ tar -tzf dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0.tar.gz |grep _vendor >> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/.gitignore >> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py >> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common.pyi >> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/vendor.txt >> >> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/__init__.py >> >> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py >> ``` >> >> The plugin works at build time by including/copying the libs specified in >> vendor.txt into place (and let `vendoring` take care of import rewrites.) >> >> For the imports to continue to work at “dev” time/from a repo checkout, I >> have added a import finder to `sys.meta_path`, and since it’s at the end of >> the list it will only be used if the normal import can’t find things. >> >> >> https://github.com/astronomer/airflow/blob/996817782be6071b306a87af9f36fe1cf2d3aaa3/task-sdk/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py >> >> This doesn’t quite give us the same runtime effect “import rewriting” >> affect, as in this approach `airflow_common` is directly loaded (i.e. >> airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common and airflow_common exist in >> sys.modules), but it does work for everything that I was able to test.. >> >> I tested it with the diff at the end of this message. My test ipython >> shell: >> >> ``` >> In [1]: from airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone import foo >> >> In [2]: foo >> Out[2]: 1 >> >> In [3]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common >> >> In [4]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone >> >> In [5]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.__file__ >> Out[5]: >> '/Users/ash/code/airflow/airflow/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py' >> >> In [6]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone.__file__ >> Out[6]: >> '/Users/ash/code/airflow/airflow/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py' >> >> ``` >> >> >> And in an standalone environment with the SDK dist I built (it needed the >> matching airflow-core right now, but that is nothing to do with this >> discussion): >> >> ``` >> ❯ _AIRFLOW__AS_LIBRARY=1 uvx --python 3.12 --with >> dist/apache_airflow_core-3.1.0-py3-none-any.whl --with >> dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl ipython >> Python 3.12.7 (main, Oct 16 2024, 07:12:08) [Clang 18.1.8 ] >> Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information >> IPython 9.4.0 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help. >> Tip: You can use `%hist` to view history, see the options with `%history?` >> >> In [1]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone >> >> In [2]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone.__file__ >> Out[2]: >> '/Users/ash/.cache/uv/archive-v0/WWq6r65aPto2eJOyPObEH/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py’ >> `` >> >> >> >> ```diff >> diff --git a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py >> b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py >> index 13a83393a9..927b7c6b61 100644 >> --- a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py >> +++ b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py >> @@ -14,3 +14,5 @@ >> # KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the >> # specific language governing permissions and limitations >> # under the License. >> + >> +foo = 1 >> diff --git a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py >> b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py >> index 340b924c66..58384ef20f 100644 >> --- a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py >> +++ b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py >> @@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ _PENDULUM3 = >> version.parse(metadata.version("pendulum")).major == 3 >> # - FixedTimezone(0, "UTC") in pendulum 2 >> utc = pendulum.UTC >> >> + >> +from airflow_common import foo >> + >> TIMEZONE: Timezone >> >> >> ``` >> >>>> On 3 Jul 2025, at 12:43, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think both approaches are doable: >>> >>> 1) -> We can very easily prevent bad imports by pre-commit when importing >>> from different distributions and make sure we are only doing relative >>> imports in the shared modules. We are doing plenty of this already. And >> yes >>> it would require relative links we currently do not allow. >>> >>> 2) -> has one disadvantage that someone at some point in time will have >> to >>> decide to synchronize this and if it happens just before release (I bet >>> this is going to happen) this will lead to solving problems that would >>> normally be solved during PR when you make a change (i.e. symbolic link >> has >>> the advantage that whoever modifies shared code will be immediately >>> notified in their PR - that they broke something because either static >>> checks or mypy or tests fail. >>> >>> Ash, do you have an idea of a process (who and when) does the >>> synchronisation in case of vendoring? Maybe we could solve it if it is >> done >>> more frequently and with some regularity? We could potentially force >>> re-vendoring at PR time as well any time shared code changes (and prevent >>> it by pre-commit. And I can't think of some place (other than releases) >> in >>> our development workflow and that seems to be a bit too late as puts an >>> extra effort on fixing potential incompatibilities introduced on release >>> manager and delays the release. WDYT? >>> >>> Re: relative links. I think for a shared library we could potentially >> relax >>> this and allow them (and actually disallow absolute links in the pieces >> of >>> code that are shared - again, by pre-commit). As I recall, the only >> reason >>> we forbade the relative links is because of how we are (or maybe were) >>> doing DAG parsing and failures resulting from it. So we decided to just >> not >>> allow it to keep consistency. The way how Dag parsing works is that when >>> you are using importlib to read the Dag from a file, the relative imports >>> do not work as it does not know what they should be relative to. But if >>> relative import is done from an imported package, it should be no >> problem, >>> I think - otherwise our Dags would not be able to import any library that >>> uses relative imports. >>> >>> Of course consistency might be the reason why we do not want to introduce >>> relative imports. I don't see it as an issue if it is guarded by >> pre-commit >>> though. >>> >>> J. >>> >>> >>> J. >>> >>> >>> czw., 3 lip 2025, 12:11 użytkownik Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >>> napisał: >>> >>>> Oh yes, symlinks will work, with one big caveat: It does mean you can’t >>>> use absolute imports in one common module to another. >>>> >>>> For example >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/4c66ebd06/airflow-core/src/airflow/utils/serve_logs.py#L41 >>>> where we have >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> from airflow.utils.module_loading import import_string >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> if we want to move serve_logs into this common lib that is then >> symlinked >>>> then we wouldn’t be able to have `from airflow_common.module_loading >> import >>>> import_string`. >>>> >>>> I can think of two possible solutions here. >>>> >>>> 1) is to allow/require relative imports in this shared lib, so `from >>>> .module_loading import import_string` >>>> 2) is to use `vendoring`[1] (from the pip maintainers) which will handle >>>> import-rewriting for us. >>>> >>>> I’d entirely forgot that symlinks in repos was a thing, so I prepared a >>>> minimal POC/demo of what vendoring approach could look like here >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/996817782be6071b306a87af9f36fe1cf2d3aaa3 >>>> >>>> Now personally I am more than happy with relative imports, but generally >>>> as a project we have avoided them, so I think that limits what we could >> do >>>> with a symlink based approach. >>>> >>>> -ash >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/pradyunsg/vendoring >>>> >>>>> On 3 Jul 2025, at 10:30, Pavankumar Gopidesu <gopidesupa...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Ash >>>>> >>>>> Yes agree option 2 would be preferred for me. Making sure we have all >> the >>>>> gaurdriles to protect any unwanted behaviour in code sharing and >>>> executing >>>>> right of tests between the packages. >>>>> >>>>> Agree with others, option 2 would be >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:02 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Ash. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would prefer option 2 here with proper tooling to handle the code >>>>>> duplication at *release* time. >>>>>> It is best to have a dist that has all it needs in itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Option 1 could very quickly get out of hand and if we decide to >> separate >>>>>> triggerer / >>>>>> dag processor / config etc etc as separate packages, back compat is >>>> going >>>>>> to be a nightmare >>>>>> and will bite us harder than we anticipate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>> Amogh Desai >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:12 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I prefer Option 2 as well to avoid matrix of dependencies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 01:03, Jens Scheffler >> <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd also rather prefer option 2 - reason here is it is rather >>>> pragmatic >>>>>>>> and we no not need to cut another package and have less package >> counts >>>>>>>> and dependencies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I remember some time ago I was checking (together with Jarek, I am >> not >>>>>>>> sure anymore...) if the usage of symlinks would be possible. To keep >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> source in one package but "symlink" it into another. If then at >> point >>>>>> of >>>>>>>> packaging/release the files are materialized we have 1 set of code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Otherwise if not possible still the redundancy could be solved by a >>>>>>>> pre-commit hook - and in Git the files are de-duplicated anyway >> based >>>>>> on >>>>>>>> content hash, so this does not hurt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02.07.25 18:49, Shahar Epstein wrote: >>>>>>>>> I support option 2 with proper automation & CI - the reasonings >>>>>> you've >>>>>>>>> shown for that make sense to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shahar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:36 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As we work on finishing off the code-level separation of Task SDK >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Core >>>>>>>>>> (scheduler etc) we have come across some situations where we would >>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> share code between these. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However it’s not as straight forward of “just put it in a common >>>>>> dist >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> both depend upon” because one of the goals of the Task SDK >>>>>> separation >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> to have 100% complete version independence between the two, >> ideally >>>>>>>> even if >>>>>>>>>> they are built into the same image and venv. Most of the reason >> why >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> isn’t straight forward comes down to backwards compatibility - if >> we >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> an change to the common/shared distribution >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We’ve listed the options we have thought about in >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/51545 (but that covers >>>>>> some >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> things that I don’t want to get in to in this discussion such as >>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>> separating operators and executors out of a single provider dist.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To give a concrete example of some code I would like to share >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/84897570bf7e438afb157ba4700768ea74824295/airflow-core/src/airflow/_logging/structlog.py >>>>>>>>>> — logging config. Another thing we will want to share will be the >>>>>>>>>> AirflowConfigParser class from airflow.configuration (but notably: >>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> parser class, _not_ the default config values, again, lets not >> dwell >>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> specifics of that) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So to bring the options listed in the issue here for discussion, >>>>>>> broadly >>>>>>>>>> speaking there are two high-level approaches: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. A single shared distribution >>>>>>>>>> 2. No shared package and copy/duplicate code >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The advantage of Approach 1 is that we only have the code in one >>>>>>> place. >>>>>>>>>> However for me, at least in this specific case of Logging config >> or >>>>>>>>>> AirflowConfigParser class is that backwards compatibility is much >>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>> harder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The main advantage of Approach 2 is the the code is released >>>>>>>> with/embedded >>>>>>>>>> in the dist (i.e. apache-airflow-task-sdk would contain the right >>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>> of the logging config and ConfigParser etc). The downside is that >>>>>>> either >>>>>>>>>> the code will need to be duplicated in the repo, or better yet it >>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> live in a single place in the repo, but some tooling (TBD) will >>>>>>>>>> automatically handle the duplication, either at commit time, or my >>>>>>>>>> preference, at release time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For this kind of shared “utility” code I am very strongly leaning >>>>>>>> towards >>>>>>>>>> option 2 with automation, as otherwise I think the backwards >>>>>>>> compatibility >>>>>>>>>> requirements would make it unworkable (very quickly over time the >>>>>>>>>> combinations we would have to test would just be unreasonable) >> and I >>>>>>>> don’t >>>>>>>>>> feel confident we can have things as stable as we need to really >>>>>>> deliver >>>>>>>>>> the version separation/independency I want to delivery with >> AIP-72. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So unless someone feels very strongly about this, I will come up >>>>>> with >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> draft PR for further discussion that will implement code sharing >> via >>>>>>>>>> “vendoring” it at build time. I have an idea of how I can achieve >>>>>> this >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> we have a single version in the repo and it’ll work there, but at >>>>>>>> runtime >>>>>>>>>> we vendor it in to the shipped dist so it lives at something like >>>>>>>>>> `airflow.sdk._vendor` etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In terms of repo layout, this likely means we would end up with: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/pyproject.toml >>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/src/ >>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/tests/ >>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/pyproject.toml >>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/src/ >>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/tests/ >>>>>>>>>> airflow-common/src >>>>>>>>>> airflow-common/tests/ >>>>>>>>>> # Possibly no airflow-common/pyproject.toml, as deps would be >>>>>> included >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the downstream projects. TBD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts and feedback welcomed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> 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
