It seems naming of contrib is used in practice with what I thought it would be (as a novice), but incubator not bad either -- yes, it gets messy if anything can get contributed. If using for that purpose, maybe there is some sort of timeframe for graduation or it winds up being removed?
Indeed, contrib is a place with hooks/operators/etc, that might work well enough, but not wholly 'graduated'. I have wondered what to do about the promotion as was already mentioned, in terms of changing imports of dags. But I guess that get's fixed pretty easily when imports break (and can have contrib point to the graduated ones in certain places). Things being part of the airflow repo is nice and shows that the community overall supports. Very much in favor of that approach, rather than wondering whether some other pypi or other code is sufficient. If I am using Airflow, I then trust that community and what winds up in that codebase ( and just one dev list to follow to stay up to date ). On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:21 PM Driesprong, Fokko <fo...@driesprong.frl> wrote: > I'm in favor of removing the Contrib folder. It doesn't really add value in > my opinion, and moving the hooks/operators will break the import. While > DAG'ing I always have to look up if the operator is in contrib or not. > > Also, I think we should keep the operators and hooks part of the Airflow > package. Having this separately will make the testing of the > hooks/operators much more complicated. That being said, I do think we need > to have more people on the project that "own" certain operators. Maybe keep > a list of the authors as well (or reintroduce the Mention-bot > https://github.com/facebookarchive/mention-bot ? Loved that bot). > > Cheers, Fokko > > > Op za 13 apr. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >: > > > I think there are quite a few contrib parts that are at least on-par with > > regards to code quality, testing and especially documentation. > > > > And yes, among those are GCP operators we developed which are not only > unit > > but also system-tested and we put quite an effort into making > documentation > > really useful and well structured ;). > > > > I'd rather move those "graduated" operators/hooks to core and maybe > rename > > the "contrib" folder to "incubator" or something like that to indicate > that > > those operators are not yet "core-quality" but aspire to become one. That > > would make a nice "intro" task for new contributors - to improve one of > the > > incubating operators to become "core-ready". > > > > I am quite sceptical myself about AIP-8 and separating out the hooks and > > operators. There were already few discussions about that, but splitting > the > > operators out might be quite difficult and it will only be possible if > > there is some way to quickly test compatibility of those split operators > > with various versions of Airflow and set of dependent requirements.. > > Otherwise it will very quickly become a mess - nobody will know which > > version of Airflow is needed to run which operators and there will be > > problems if someone will try to run different operators with different > > requirements in the same DAG (and different versions of airflow). > > > > Until we manage to isolate operators within the same DAG to potentially > use > > different dependencies, this is straight road to dependency-hell. > > > > One solution to that that I have in mind for some time (but this is very > > long term) might be to make Airflow Docker-native and run every operator > > within it's own separate Docker instance with it's own dependencies. That > > would be quite possible to do (we would need to split operators into very > > light "proxy" (basically current __init__() - the part that is executed > > within DAG scanning) and heavy "execute" parts (where the operator's > > execute-related methods would be run in separate Docker on workers). > > > > J. > > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:59 AM Felix Uellendall < > felix.uellend...@gmx.de > > > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 on deprecating the contrib folder. > > > > > > Bolk de Bruin the reason the core hooks and operators are properly > > > tested because, for example I added some more tests to it and I am > > > "only" a contributor. > > > > > > So do you really want to split up contributors work and core committers > > > work? I personally think this is not the right way to go. > > > > > > It is true that the contrib hooks and operators have not the same level > > > of code quality but we can do something about it. I am trying to > improve > > > our test coverage overall and add missing tests. > > > > > > I don't think an extra step is needed here where we first move properly > > > tested ones into the core package and then moving new ones from time to > > > time into it. Wouldn't that mean that we think the code quality of > > > "contrib" (contributor) in general is worse than the code quality of > > > committers? Every new contributor who comes along this project would > > > think that, wouldn't he? > > > > > > -feluelle > > > > > > Am 13/04/2019 um 07:51 schrieb Beau Barker: > > > > A separate airflow-contrib repo, on a separate release cadence would > be > > > my preference. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 12 Apr 2019, at 11:17 pm, Julian De Ruiter < > > > julianderui...@godatadriven.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Isn’t this in contradiction with AIP-8, which is aimed at removing > > > operators/hooks from the core Airflow package? > > > >> > > > >> Personally I would rather remove hooks/operators from Airflow than > add > > > even more to the Airflow core. This counts double for the contrib > stuff, > > > which is often poorly designed and/or tested. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Julian > > > >> > > > >>> On 12 Apr 2019, at 10:23, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> That’s perfectly fine to me. > > > >>> > > > >>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > > >>> > > > >>>> Op 12 apr. 2019 om 10:20 heeft Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > het > > > volgende geschreven: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Ok. How about moving the properly tested and maintained hooks/ops > > from > > > >>>> contrib to core? > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 09:13 Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I disagree. Core signals “properly tested” and maintained. Ie. A > > > kind of > > > >>>>> quality. I don’t think contrib has that. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Op 12 apr. 2019 om 10:03 heeft Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > het > > > >>>>> volgende geschreven: > > > >>>>>> Contrib folder was used when it was used at Airbnb. Currently, > it > > > doesn't > > > >>>>>> make any sense and we have equal responsibility to maintain all > > the > > > >>>>> hooks, > > > >>>>>> operators, sensors in contrib folder as we do for core. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I would suggest to remove contrib folder and move all hooks, > ops, > > > and > > > >>>>>> sensors to the core folder. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Or reorganize the folder structure similar to what was discussed > > in > > > a > > > >>>>>> mailing thread few months ago. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>> Kaxil > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > E: jarek.pot...@polidea.com > > >
