Right -> the same. Happy to double check with your POC :)
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:16 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> That's a very good point about IDE's, I'll double check how PyCharm behaves
> (Guessing PyCharm is the most popular one? PyCharm and IntelliJ are the same
> engine under the hood, right?)
>
> -a
> On Feb 22 2020, at 4:58 pm, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > My proposal here:
> > > Add in a _getattr_ based lazy import for DAG to airflow/__init__.py module
> >
> >
> > I am all for it - if we can do it in this way, then it is indeed
> > better for the users.
> >
> > >
> > > Do NOT issue a deprecation warning for this.
> > > Revert the change to all the imports in example dags etc so that those do
> > > from airflow import DAG.
> > I would only be for it if the PEP-562 change works fine with IDE
> > support. Many of our users use IDEs to write their DAGsand they can
> > get confused where to import the DAGs from. If the PEP-562 works fine
> > with the IDEs, and they are smart enough to figure this out, I am ok
> > with that.
> >
> > On a related note - I fully agree with the "clear API" approach for
> > DAG developers. We did not have clear rules for that so far.
> > Eventually (I think 2.0 is good time for that) we should have a clear
> > statement what really the API is for DAG writers. We should issue at
> > first a deprecation warning and then error if someone tries to use
> > something not explicitly allowed from the DAG. It should not be a
> > convention ("from airflow.* is allowed in documentation"). It should
> > be enforcement. We can do it in scheduler - as we are parsing the DAGs
> > on our own and we can find out what imports the users are using. We
> > could even think about adding those deprecations in 2.0. There are not
> > that many things that should be importable from 'airflow.*'. And that
> > should be rather easy - I am playing now with AST parser and it is
> > rather straightforward - we just need to generate list of "allowed"
> > imports .
> >
> > > (I'm less worried about the internal API airflow users internally, so
> > > airflow.models.TaskInstance vs airflow.models.task_instance.TaskInstance
> > > is okay for me. I find the later uglier but if it doesn't affect users I
> > > don't mind it)
> > > Ash
> > --
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129
--
Jarek Potiuk
Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
M: +48 660 796 129
