I built the code so it can easily accommodate other Jinja extensions if needed. When this issue consolidates they can be added to the source code and it will work automatically (although at the moment it's only .jinja2)
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:01 PM Xinbin Huang <bin.huan...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the idea of rendering files with .jinja2 extensions, and we can > extend it a bit to some variations that are generally recognized by > Plugins, e.g. .jinja, .j2. > > For VSCode, the plugin I use is Better Jinja > < > https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=samuelcolvin.jinjahtml > > > . > > Best > Bin > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:40 AM Ori Popowski <ori....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @ash I agree that in 2.0 it will be much better to _not_ render files not > > ending with .jinja2, and to render only .jinja2 files. > > It's much more intuitive, since it can be quite confusing for a dev to > see > > regular files being rendered. > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:33 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > We could do this globally for 1.10, but for 2.0 I think it might be > nice > > > to change this as follows: > > > > > > Rename template_ext to file_exts, and it looks for files with those > > > extensions, but doesn't render them. > > > > > > And then make it only render files with, for example, .sh.jinja2. > > > > > > Right now it's impossible to have scripts/files external to the DAG > that > > > aren't rendered, so you have to be careful to escape {{ in them, which > > > can be annoying. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > -a > > > > > > On Apr 29 2020, at 12:17 pm, Ori Popowski <ori....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > No. Any extension mentioned in `template_ext` will still be > templated. > > > But > > > > in addition, also those ending with `.jinja2`, as long it's preceded > > > > by one > > > > of those extensions (meaning that `file.jinja2` won't be templated) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:41 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Are you also proposing that, for example .sh would not be templated, > > but > > > >> that .sh.jinja2 would be templated? > > > >> > > > >> Ash > > > >> > > > >> On 29 April 2020 11:39:13 BST, Ori Popowski <ori....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> >At the moment, various operators support reading templates from > given > > > >> >filenames (for example, `bash_command` of `BashOperator`). However, > > all > > > >> >of > > > >> >these operators specify extensions such as .sh, .json etc., so it > > means > > > >> >users need to write Jinja2 templates inside .sh, .json files. This > is > > > >> >problematic for 3 reasons: > > > >> > > > > >> >1. No semantic support when writing templates (major IDEs support > > this > > > >> >extension, including Github itself) > > > >> >2. It's not aligned to widespread convention of naming template > files > > > >> >with > > > >> >.jinja2 extension > > > >> >3. It's harder to distinguish between template files and > non-template > > > >> >files > > > >> > > > > >> >A better way to do it would be supporting the .jinja2 extension. > > > >> > > > > >> >The proposition at the moment is to globally accept .jinja2 > extension > > > >> >in > > > >> >`BaseOperator` whenever `template_ext` is defined. It means that > all > > > >> >inheriting operators will now automatically support their already > > > >> >defined > > > >> >extensions but also with .jinja2 appended to them (i.e. if you have > > > >> >`template_ext = ('.json', '.yml')` then also .json.jinja2 and > > > >> >.yml.jinja2 > > > >> >will be added)). > > > >> > > > > >> >Since this affects a vast part of the codebase, this suggestion is > > open > > > >> >to > > > >> >discussion. WDYT? > > > >> > > > > >> >For more info, see https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/8603 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
