Hey Rafał (Eugene, Michal - and others who are looking), I think I know where your/Eugen/Michał concerns are coming from. And I think it would be great if we can talk it over a bit. I believe this is - in parts - quite a misunderstanding of what Open Lineage really is, how much of an integration it is and what are the reasons why it has been implemented the way it was implemented in Airflow.
**Idea**: (Julien - Maybe you can organize it ?): Maybe we can have an open-to-everyone presentation/zoom call with quite some time foreseen to ask questions where you would explain the community about those integration points (and especially those people who are worried we are losing something by choosing the OpenLineage integration). I would love to see such a presentation - specifically focused on explaining how Open-Lineage is really improving the current lineage approach and what problems it solves that the existing generic interface doesn't. Just to set the tone and focus for such meeting if we have one: For me - when I look at Open Lineage, it is really "this is how lineage generic interface **should** be done in Airflow". The "generic" lineage support we have now is very, very basic, I'd even say far too simplistic. I would even say, it's useless besides a few, very basic use cases. Simply because there was never a good "receiver" of the information to cover those cases. When you look closely at OpenLineage, it's nothing more than a better convention of the dictionaries that we send as a metadata, better meta-data in case of SQL operators (Hooks in the future hopefully), allowing handling some cases that current lineage simply cannot. Also what open-lineage integration with Airflow covers better handling of the lifecycle "task" and "dag" in Airflow to be able to bind lineage data together. That's my understanding of what we get when we integrate OL in. I think over the last 2 years Datakin/Astronomer people had worked out the level of interface that **just works** and if we would like to get the lineage information from Airflow as useful as it is in OL, we would have to anyway implement pretty much all of the things they already did. I would love (and I think many community members) to take part in such a call to hear on that particular aspect of the OL integration. J. On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:40 AM Rafal Biegacz <rafalbieg...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, > > I second/echo the input provided by Eugene and Michal. > > In general, Airflow should provide generic interfaces to lineage backends > so it's easy to configure the one preferred by the user. Whether it's Open > Lineage, proprietary solution, Dataplex Lineage, etc. it should be the > user's choice. > > We should avoid close integration with any specific lineage backend due to > the reasons already mentioned, i.e. to avoid translations between lineage > backends. Also, we would closely couple one framework (Airflow) with > another one (Open Lineage) - it makes Airflow more complex and less > flexible. Loose coupling between lineage backends and Airflow seems to be > more future-proven. > > Regards, Rafal. > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 12:21 AM Julien Le Dem > <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > >> Dear Airflow community, >> I have transferred the content of the working google doc I shared a few >> weeks ago to the Airflow confluence: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-53+OpenLineage+in+Airflow >> All comments have been answered, I added clarifications to the doc >> accordingly and I also added your suggestions to improve the proposal. >> All that history is linked from the discussion thread link in the >> confluence doc if you wish to consult it. >> Thank you all for your feedback and help in the process. >> Best >> Julien >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 2:55 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@astronomer.io> >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for the email Jarek, and Eugene for your suggestions, >>> I do agree with Jarek's assessment. I don't have very much to add to his >>> argument, it is very thoughtful! >>> OpenLineage was started to avoid the cartesian complexity that Eugene >>> mentions. There's actually that specific illustration in the OpenLineage >>> doc >>> <https://openlineage.io/docs/#how-openlineage-benefits-the-ecosystem>. >>> Lineage consumers want to avoid having to understand the lineage format >>> of each individual observed data transformation layer. And transformation >>> layers don't want to understand every Metadata store's model and protocol. >>> Eugene, about your specific proposal about a global vocabulary of >>> entities, I think it is a great suggestion. >>> We can map those entities to Datasets in OpenLineage. The way >>> OpenLineage models this is by allowing specific facets attached to Dataset. >>> Facets >>> are pieces of metadata <https://openlineage.io/docs/#core-model>each >>> with their own JsonSchema. >>> For example a table from a relational database will have a schema facet >>> when a file in GCS might not. >>> So I think in Airflow we could have each of the entity classes you >>> describe be used in the get_openlineage_facets*() API in the Operators. >>> Each of those classes would know what OpenLineage facets they can expose. >>> I'll add a mention in the AIP and I think we can go in more details in a >>> ticket. >>> Cheers, >>> Julien >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:27 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Just a quick personal view on it, Eugene (I bet Julian's answer will >>>> be more thoughtful). >>>> >>>> I think you are right to the "agnostic" part. But I have one question >>>> - what are we considering "agnostic"? >>>> >>>> There is no "widespread" standard for lineage (yet). Open Lineage >>>> with its donation to Linux Foundation Data & AI is aspiring to become >>>> one. And it's a pretty good candidate: >>>> >>>> * designed from grounds-up to be agnostic (Open Lineage was only >>>> published as an API from day one) >>>> * as of recently, the ownership and governance of Open Lineage is with >>>> Linux Foundation Data & AI (https://lfaidata.foundation/) which is >>>> part of "Linux Foundation Project" - well known and respectful >>>> foundation that - similarly to the ASF is an umbrella and provides >>>> governance rules for a big number of well established OSS projects >>>> >>>> In essence it is the same approach as we already discussed and >>>> approved for Open Telemetry (which is governed by CNCF which is in the >>>> same league as recognition and governance to LFP) (not yet implemented >>>> though). In the case of Open-Telemetry, we decided against developing >>>> our "own" existing standard but we opted for one that is out there. >>>> Yes it is a bit more established and popular than Open Lineage is, but >>>> i so wish that we chose and implemented it already (and earlier as not >>>> having a standard there - except statsd which is really, really poor) >>>> has a great impact on Airflow being just "pluggable" in existing >>>> solutions for monitoring. (BTW. I hope we implement it soon and I hear >>>> (and see) there are attempts to do so). >>>> >>>> In the case of Open Lineage, the questions are - is there an >>>> alternative of the same caliber? Shall we produce our own "agnostic >>>> standard" for it instead ? Is there a chance the idea of >>>> "airflow-specific" attributes will catch up and many "consumers" will >>>> be writing their own conversions to the way they can consume it? >>>> >>>> I would really, really try to avoid the pitfalls nicely summarized >>>> here: https://xkcd.com/927/ >>>> >>>> We can of course make a wrong bet and in 2 years Airflow might be the >>>> only one supporting Open Lineage. That might happen. Though the list >>>> of "consumers" of Open Lineage is already pretty good IMHO. Or maybe - >>>> more likely - once Airflow implements it, due to Airflow's popularity >>>> and the fact that there is already competition supporting it (e.g. >>>> Amundsen) we will increase the chance of "hockey-stick" adoption of >>>> Open Lineage. My bet is - the latter and for the benefit of the whole >>>> ecosystem. I think we have a chance to influence creation of a new, >>>> important standard. Much less so, I think if we just provide our own >>>> custom solution - with lots and lots of work for others to be able to >>>> consume it, no time to properly nurture the API and make it easier to >>>> implement it (which is undoubtedly what Datakin, Astronomer and now >>>> LFData & AI run governance main focus is) >>>> >>>> Are there other alternatives we should consider ? Do we want to >>>> develop our own standard (and implement all the integrations from the >>>> grounds up) ? >>>> >>>> J. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:40 AM Eugen Kosteev <eu...@kosteev.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi Julien. >>>> > >>>> > I reviewed the design doc. >>>> > The general idea looks good to me, but I have some concerns that I >>>> would like to share. >>>> > >>>> > If I understand correctly the proposed design is to fill in >>>> "operators" with self-methods to extract lineage metadata from it, and I >>>> agree with the motivation. If those are decoupled (in a form of extractors >>>> in separate package) from operators itself, then the downsides is that (as >>>> you mentioned) - extractors will be distributed separately and "operators" >>>> logic is out of sync with "lineage extraction" logic by design. >>>> > Also knowledge about internals of operator spills out of the operator >>>> which is not good at all (at the very least). >>>> > >>>> > However, if we make every operator being exposing method to generate >>>> lineage metadata of the specific format, e.g. OpenLineage etc., then we >>>> will end up with cartesian complexity of supporting in each >>>> provider+operator each backend format. >>>> > >>>> > If you say that the goal is that "operators" will always generate >>>> OpenLineage format only and each consumer will convert this format to their >>>> own internal representation, well, if they do this then this seems like a >>>> working approach. But with the assumption that each consumer will support >>>> it. >>>> > >>>> > I think it comes down to the question: is OpenLineage format enough >>>> popular, complete and proper for the lineage metadata that every consumer >>>> will be convinced to support it. We may also consider issues like mismatch >>>> of lineage feature parity, e.g. OpenLineage supports field-level lineage >>>> but consumer doesn't support (or not at the moment), so we would prefer >>>> lineage metadata transferred to the backend to be slightly different in >>>> this case. >>>> > >>>> > What do you think about the idea: >>>> > 1. make lineage metadata generated by "operators" to be agnostic of >>>> the specific format, just using entities from big generic vocabulary of >>>> entities e.g. created here >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/airflow/lineage/entities.py. >>>> We would have there e.g. entities like: >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > @attr.s(auto_attribs=True, kw_only=True) >>>> > class PostgresTable: >>>> > """Airflow lineage entity representing Postgres table.""" >>>> > >>>> > host: str = attr.ib() >>>> > port: str = attr.ib() >>>> > database: str = attr.ib() >>>> > schema: str = attr.ib() >>>> > table: str = attr.ib() >>>> > >>>> > @attr.s(auto_attribs=True, kw_only=True) >>>> > class GCSEntity: >>>> > """Airflow lineage entity representing generic Google Cloud >>>> Storage entity.""" >>>> > >>>> > bucket: str = attr.ib() >>>> > path: str = attr.ib() >>>> > >>>> > @attr.s(auto_attribs=True, kw_only=True) >>>> > class AWSS3Entity: >>>> > """Airflow lineage entity representing generic AWS S3 entity.""" >>>> > >>>> > bucket: str = attr.ib() >>>> > path: str = attr.ib() >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > 2. Implement "adapters" that will act as a bridge between "operators" >>>> and backends. Their responsibility will be to convert lineage metadata >>>> generated by "operators" to a format understandable by specific backend. >>>> > And then we can use the built-in mechanism of inlets/outlets to >>>> bypass Airflow lineage metadata to the Airflow lineage backend. >>>> > >>>> > I didn't get exactly implementation details of your proposed design, >>>> but I think maintaining global vocabulary of entities to use in >>>> inlets/outlets of operators is crucial for Airflow, as this could be >>>> leveraged to build various features on top of it, like displaying lineage >>>> graph in Airflow UI (based on XCOM):) >>>> > >>>> > Importantly to note, if we decide to send out from Airflow lineage >>>> metadata only in OpenLineage format, well, we could have than only one >>>> "adapter" OpenLineageAdapter. But the "adapters" approach leaves us room >>>> for adding support to others (following "pluggable" approach as Airflow is >>>> mainly known/good about). >>>> > >>>> > All in all: >>>> > - global vocabulary of entities used across all "operators" (with all >>>> advantages out of it, mentioned above) >>>> > - "adapters" approach >>>> > seems to me crucial points in the design that make sense to me. >>>> > >>>> > What do you think about this? >>>> > >>>> > - Eugene >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:01 AM Julien Le Dem >>>> <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hello Michał, >>>> >> Thank you for your input. >>>> >> I would clarify that OpenLineage doesn't make any assumption about >>>> the backend being used to store lineage and is an adapter-like layer. >>>> >> OpenLineage exists as the spec specifically for that purpose of >>>> avoiding the problem of every lineage consumer having to understand every >>>> lineage producer. >>>> >> Consumers of lineage want a unified spec consuming lineage from any >>>> data transformation layer like Airflow, Spark, Flink, SQL, Warehouses, ... >>>> >> Just like OpenTelemetry allows consuming traces independently of the >>>> technology used, so does OpenLineage for lineage. >>>> >> Julien >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 12:48 AM Michał Modras < >>>> michalmod...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> As Airflow already supports lineage functionality through pluggable >>>> lineage backends, I think OpenLineage and other lineage systems integration >>>> should follow this path. I think more 'native' integration with OpenLineage >>>> (or any other lineage system) in Airflow while maintaining the generic >>>> lineage backend architecture in parallel would make the user experience >>>> less open, troublesome to maintain, and the Airflow architecture itself >>>> more constrained by a logic of a specific system. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I think enriching operators with a generic method exposing lineage >>>> metadata that could be leveraged by lineage backends regardless of their >>>> implementation is a good idea which the Cloud Composer team would gladly >>>> contribute to. I believe the translation of the Airflow metadata exposed by >>>> the operators should be done by lineage backends (or another adapter-like >>>> layer). Tying Airflow operators' development to a specific lineage system >>>> like OpenLineage forces operators' contributors to understand that system >>>> too, which increases both the entry costs and maintenance costs. I see it >>>> as unnecessary coupling. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best, >>>> >>> Michal >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 7:10 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@astronomer.io> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you Eugen, >>>> >>>> This sounds very aligned with the goals of OpenLineage and I think >>>> this would work well. >>>> >>>> Here are the sections in the doc that I think address your points: >>>> >>>> - generalize lineage metadata extraction as self-method in each >>>> operator, using generic lineage entities >>>> >>>> See: OpenLineage support in providers. It describes how each >>>> operator exposes its lineage. >>>> >>>> - implement "adapter"s to convert generated metadata to Data >>>> Lineage format, Open Lineage format, etc. >>>> >>>> The goal here is each consumer turns from OpenLineage format to >>>> their own internal representation as you are suggesting. >>>> >>>> In the motivation section, towards the end, I link to a few >>>> examples of data catalogs doing just that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:36 AM Eugen Kosteev <eu...@kosteev.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ++ Michal Modras >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:49 PM Eugen Kosteev <eu...@kosteev.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Cloud Composer recently launched "Data lineage with Dataplex" >>>> feature which effectively means to generate lineage out of DAG/task >>>> executions and export it to Data Lineage (Data Catalog service) for further >>>> analysis. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> https://cloud.google.com/composer/docs/composer-2/lineage-integration >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> This feature is as of now in the "Preview" state. >>>> >>>>>> The current implementation uses built-in "Airflow lineage >>>> backend" feature and methods to extract lineage metadata on task post >>>> execution events. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The general idea was to contribute this to the Airflow community >>>> in a form: >>>> >>>>>> - generalize lineage metadata extraction as self-method in each >>>> operator, using generic lineage entities >>>> >>>>>> - implement "adapter"s to convert generated metadata to Data >>>> Lineage format, Open Lineage format, etc. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Adoption of "Airflow OpenLineage" for Composer would mean to >>>> introduce an additional layer of converting from OpenLineage format to Data >>>> Lineage (Data Catalog/Dataplex) format. But this is definitely a >>>> possibility. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:53 AM Julien Le Dem >>>> <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thank you very much for your input Jarek. >>>> >>>>>>> I am responding in the comments and adding to the doc >>>> accordingly. >>>> >>>>>>> I would also love to hear from more stakeholders. >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to all who provided feedback so far. >>>> >>>>>>> Julien >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> General comment from my side: I think Open Lineage is (and >>>> should be >>>> >>>>>>>> even more) a feature of Airflow that expands Airflow's >>>> capabilities >>>> >>>>>>>> greatly and opens up the direction we've been all working on - >>>> Airflow >>>> >>>>>>>> as a Platform. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> I think closely integrating it with Open-Lineage goes the same >>>> >>>>>>>> direction (also mentioned in the doc) as Open Telemetry goes, >>>> where we >>>> >>>>>>>> might decide to support certain standards in order to expand >>>> >>>>>>>> capabilities of Airflow-as-a-platform and allows to plug-in >>>> multiple >>>> >>>>>>>> external solutions that would use the standard API. After >>>> Open-Lineage >>>> >>>>>>>> graduated recently to LFAI&Data foundation (I've been >>>> watching this >>>> >>>>>>>> happening from far), it is I think the perfect candidate for >>>> Airflow >>>> >>>>>>>> to incorporate it. I hope this will help all the players to >>>> make use >>>> >>>>>>>> of the extra work necessary by the community to make it >>>> "officially >>>> >>>>>>>> supported". I think we have to also get some feedback from the >>>> big >>>> >>>>>>>> stakeholders in Airflow - because one thing is to have such a >>>> >>>>>>>> capability, and another is to get it used in all the ways >>>> Airflow is >>>> >>>>>>>> used - not only by on-premise/self-hosted users (which is >>>> obviously a >>>> >>>>>>>> huge driving factor) but also everywhere where Airflow is >>>> exposed by >>>> >>>>>>>> others - Astronomer is obviously on-board. we see some warm >>>> words from >>>> >>>>>>>> Amazon (mentioned by Julian), I would love to hear whether the >>>> >>>>>>>> Composer team at Google would be on board in using the >>>> open-lineage >>>> >>>>>>>> information exposed this way in their Data Catalog (and likely >>>> more) >>>> >>>>>>>> offering. We have Amundsen and others and possibly other >>>> stakeholders >>>> >>>>>>>> might want to say something. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> There is - undoubtedly - an extra effort involved in >>>> implementing and >>>> >>>>>>>> keeping it running smoothly (as Julian mentioned, that is the >>>> main >>>> >>>>>>>> reason why the Open Lineage community would like to make the >>>> >>>>>>>> integration part of Airflow. But by being smart and >>>> integrating it in >>>> >>>>>>>> the way that will allow to plug-it-in into our CI, verification >>>> >>>>>>>> process and making some very clear expectations about what it >>>> means >>>> >>>>>>>> for contributors to Airflow to get it running, we can make some >>>> >>>>>>>> initial investment in making it happen and minimise on-going >>>> cost, >>>> >>>>>>>> while maximising the gain. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> And looking at all the above - I am super happy to help with >>>> all that >>>> >>>>>>>> to make this easy to "swallow" and integrate well, even if it >>>> will >>>> >>>>>>>> take an extra effort, especially that we will have experts >>>> from Open >>>> >>>>>>>> Lineage who worked with both Airflow and Open Lineage being >>>> the core >>>> >>>>>>>> part of the effort. I am actually super excited - this might >>>> be the >>>> >>>>>>>> next-big-thing for Airflow to strengthen its position as an >>>> >>>>>>>> indispensable component of "even more modern data stack". >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> I made my initial comments in the doc, and am looking forward >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>>> making it happen :). >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> J. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:20 AM Julien Le Dem >>>> >>>>>>>> <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > Dear Airflow Community, >>>> >>>>>>>> > I have been working on a proposal to bring an OpenLineage >>>> provider to Airflow. >>>> >>>>>>>> > I am looking for feedback with the goal to post an official >>>> AIP. >>>> >>>>>>>> > Please feel free to comment in the doc above. >>>> >>>>>>>> > Thank you, >>>> >>>>>>>> > Julien (OpenLineage project lead) >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > For convenience, here is the rationale from the doc: >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > Operational lineage collection is a common need to >>>> understand dependencies between data pipelines and track end-to-end >>>> provenance of data. It enables many use cases from ensuring reliable >>>> delivery of data through observability to compliance and cost management. >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > Publishing operational lineage is a core Airflow capability >>>> to enable troubleshooting and governance. >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > OpenLineage is a project part of the LFAI&Data foundation >>>> that provides a spec standardizing operational lineage collection and >>>> sharing across the data ecosystem. If it provides plugins for popular open >>>> source projects, its intent is very similar to OpenTelemetry (also under >>>> the Linux Foundation umbrella): to remain a spec for lineage exchange that >>>> projects - open source or proprietary - implement. >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > Built-in OpenLineage support in Airflow will make it easier >>>> and more reliable for Airflow users to publish their operational lineage >>>> through the OpenLineage ecosystem. >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > The current external plugin maintained in the OpenLineage >>>> project depends on Airflow and operators internals and gets broken when >>>> changes are made on those. Having a built-in integration ensures a better >>>> first class support to expose lineage that gets tested alongside other >>>> changes and therefore is more stable. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>> Eugene >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>>> Eugene >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Eugene >>>> >>>
