I believe this is one of the cases where we can just go with the consensus indeed :).
J. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:51 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > Do we need to have a vote on it? I'm mostly interested in answering the > question about vote in general terms rather than this specific case) > > What do we need votes on, and when is "yeah no one complained, let's do > it" enough? > > For example if someone had created a PR for this and had appropriate > instructions in UPDATING I would feel okay merging it. > > -a > > On 18 February 2020 09:37:13 GMT, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > >All right. I turn it into vote then :) > > > > > >On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:45 AM Driesprong, Fokko > ><fo...@driesprong.frl> > >wrote: > > > >> I don't have any objection, however, this isn't a [VOTE] right? ;) > >> > >> Op di 18 feb. 2020 om 00:08 schreef Jarek Potiuk > ><jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >> >: > >> > >> > I see that it's quite welcome change, so I think if no-one else > >objects > >> > within three days, I consider that a lazy consensus (not that lazy > >in > >> fact) > >> > :) https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:14 PM Maxime Beauchemin < > >> > maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:32 AM Daniel Imberman < > >> > daniel.imber...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 on my end! > >> > > > > >> > > > via Newton Mail > >> > > > [ > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.6&source=email_footer_2 > >> > > > ] > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:30 AM, Driesprong, Fokko > >> > <fo...@driesprong.frl > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > I like this as well. It will hopefully also reduce the memory > >> footprint > >> > > of > >> > > > Airflow. > >> > > > > >> > > > The only thing I can think of is that it will reduce the test > >> coverage, > >> > > but > >> > > > that's a vanity metric anyway :-) > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, Fokko > >> > > > > >> > > > Op za 15 feb. 2020 om 13:37 schreef Ash Berlin-Taylor < > >> a...@apache.org > >> > >: > >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm massively in favour of this. And as a side effect it > >would > >> solve > >> > > an > >> > > > > issue a reports almost two years ago > >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1931 ( > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-1931?jql=project%20%3D%20AIRFLOW%20AND%20text%20~%20%22logging%20import%22 > >> > > > > ) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The one outstanding question is how/where we move > >> > settings.initialize > >> > > > and > >> > > > > integrate_plugins to. I'm specifically thinking of usecases > >> outside > >> > of > >> > > > > someone running an airflow subcommand, such as in tests, > >where you > >> > > want > >> > > > > airflow to be initialized. > >> > > > > Perhaps: > >> > > > > import airflow; airflow.initialize() > >> > > > > Or I wonder if we need that at all? Things sould maybe > >integrate > >> > > plugins > >> > > > > when they need to (by making a property/method somewhere > >that is > >> > > > memoized) > >> > > > > and likewise in settings? Callers not having to do this > >would be > >> > > nicer, > >> > > > > certainly. > >> > > > > -a > >> > > > > On Feb 15 2020, at 12:31 pm, Jarek Potiuk < > >> jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > TL;DR; I would like to ask the community for opinion about > >> > reducing > >> > > > (or > >> > > > > > even removing) the number of automated imports we have in > >> > > > > > `airflow/__init__.py` for Airflow 2.0. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This issue is plaguing us for quite a while already and I > >think > >> we > >> > > > have a > >> > > > > > perfect opportunity to solve it in AIrflow 2.0. Currently > >our > >> > > > > > `airflow/__init__.py` file contains the code I copied > >below. > >> While > >> > > > > looking > >> > > > > > fairly innocent it causes a lot of problems - because > >importing > >> > > > anything > >> > > > > > from any airflow package automatically imports probably > >90% of > >> the > >> > > > > airflow > >> > > > > > internal code - all models, configurations, utils, Task > >> Instance, > >> > > > > > BaseOperator and plenty others (also we initialise all > >plugins > >> > where > >> > > > they > >> > > > > > are mostly not needed). What it really is - we have > >implicit > >> > > > dependencies > >> > > > > > in our code that are causing various side effects: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - pylint detects cyclic dependencies that are super-hard > >and > >> > > sometimes > >> > > > > > impossible to remove > >> > > > > > - mypy and pylint are very slow - mypy parallel more is > >slowed > >> > down > >> > > by > >> > > > > > having to parse whole airflow in multiple instances, and > >pylint > >> > > > cannot > >> > > > be > >> > > > > > run in parallel at all as it starts behaving randomly > >w/regards > >> > > cyclic > >> > > > > > dependency detections > >> > > > > > - we cannot really apply pylint and type annotations to > >most of > >> > the > >> > > > core > >> > > > > > classes as it will add even more cyclic dependencies > >> > > > > > - last but not least - our CLI is really, really slow > >because of > >> > > that > >> > > > - > >> > > > > > right now any CLI command even `airflow version` has to > >pull in > >> > and > >> > > > > > initialise all the classes. Solving that slowness is > >impossible > >> > > > without > >> > > > > > removing the __init__.py code > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > The effect of this change is that most of DAGs and plugins > >> written > >> > > so > >> > > > far > >> > > > > > for 1.10.* will not be compatible with Airflow 2.0 - in > >all of > >> the > >> > > > DAGs > >> > > > > > import paths will have to be changed. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > However as I see it - it's not a problem whatsoever. > >People will > >> > > have > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > perform migration from 1.10.* -> 2.0 and we know it's not > >going > >> to > >> > > be > >> > > > > > seamless. We are going to write some tools for the > >migration and > >> > > > changing > >> > > > > > such import paths is super easy fix that we can automate > >> > > super-easily. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'd love to hear community opinion on that. > >> > > > > > J. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > *Current `airflow/__init__.py`:* > >> > > > > > from typing import Callable, Optional > >> > > > > > from airflow import utils > >> > > > > > from airflow import settings > >> > > > > > from airflow import version > >> > > > > > from airflow.utils.log.logging_mixin import LoggingMixin > >> > > > > > from airflow.configuration import conf > >> > > > > > from airflow.exceptions import AirflowException > >> > > > > > from airflow.models.dag import DAG > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > __version__ = version.version > >> > > > > > settings.initialize() > >> > > > > > from airflow.plugins_manager import integrate_plugins > >> > > > > > login: Optional[Callable] = None > >> > > > > > integrate_plugins() > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > >> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > >> Engineer > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >> > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Jarek Potiuk > >> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > >> > > >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >> > > >> > > > > > >-- > > > >Jarek Potiuk > >Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > >M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
