I tried an example with PEP-562 but the autocomplete didn't work in Pycharm
and still showed the deprecated function.
I agree we should have a deprecation warning before we should have changed
it. How about we introduce a deprecation warning in the next version
(1.10.10) ?
Regards,
Kaxil
ᐧ
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
wrote:
> I also started to use VSCode in parallel on my Chromebook as this is the
> best way to get devenv running there (and I believe it's now THE most
> popular IDE - including for Python developers). I can check it there as
> well.
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:33 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
