+1 On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:36 AM Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io> wrote:
> +1 on absolute import. Honestly, a huge fan of doing it as an absolute vs. > relative. > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:09 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > No strong opinion but absolute import seems better from a user's > > perspective. > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1! > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Get's my vote, certainly. > > > > > > > > Here's a PR to do it -- https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/10825 > > > > > > > > If no one complains in 24 hours lets merge that. > > > > > > > > On Sep 9 2020, at 9:35 am, Tomasz Urbaszek < > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to spark a (hopefully short) discussion about import > > > > > style in Airflow. In short: absolute vs relative imports. > > > > > Reason for this discussion: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/10729#discussion_r485419342 > > > > > > > > > > Personally I think we should enforce (using pre-commit hook) > absolute > > > > > imports in the whole Airflow codebase. We use them already but it's > > > > > not written anywhere that this is a preferred way. > > > > > > > > > > I find absolute imports easier to understand and tremendously > helpful > > > > > to understand the structure and interconnections in a codebase. It > > > > > also easier to refactor absolute imports than relative ones. The > only > > > > > price of absolute imports is their length > > > > > (airflow.providers.google.cloud.operator.dataproc <3) but I still > > > > > prefere informativeness over amount of code. > > > > > > > > > > What is your opinion on this? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Tomek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > >
