Hi Julien. Can you, please, include me there as well: [email protected] or [email protected]. Looking forward to see presentation.
- Eugene On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:36 PM Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > I have to move the OpenLineage presentation to next week. > Sorry for the change. > It will be Friday next week March 31st at 5pm CET 9am PT. > > https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=MTF1bHRrdTdrM29vMGZyamdzc2JuZWFkMHEganVsaWVuQGFzdHJvbm9tZXIuaW8&tmsrc=julien%40astronomer.io > Julien > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 8:21 PM Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We are planning to do this session next Thursday at 5pm CET 9am PT. I > will > > send a zoom link in advance. > > Julien > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 05:59 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Cool. I am looking forward to it :). It would be great to get some > >> insight from those who attempted to get the lineage working in several > >> versions of Open Lineage and finally arrived at the current > >> specs/integration. > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:02 PM Julien Le Dem > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Thank you Jarek, > >> > I am happy to organize a zoom presentation about OpenLineage and > answer > >> any question. It is indeed a spec decoupling the data transformation > layer > >> from the Metadata store people are using. Just like OpenTelemetry is for > >> service metrics/traces. > >> > Best, > >> > Julien > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 11:23 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> And to add a little "parallel" - I think Open Lineage integration > >> replacing our "generic lineage" is very similar step to the new > >> "Multi-tenant"-ready authentication interface we are discussing in > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/cc9dj680nwz494k8n51w6qqohzm4wgck > >> >> > >> >> Yes - we have a generic authentication interface, but no - it's > >> useless for the case where multi-tenancy and good level of resource > >> authorization is needed. It's just far too simplistic and limited. > >> >> > >> >> Same with current lineage generic interface - yes, we have it but > it's > >> only useful in a limited set of cases. and if we want to step-it-up we > need > >> to come up with something better (and Open Lineage happens to be one > that > >> has been developed with Airflow in mind and battle tested). > >> >> > >> >> J. > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 8:16 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> 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 < > >> [email protected]> 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > >> 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. > >> >>>>>> 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 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 < > [email protected]> > >> 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>>> ++ Michal Modras > >> >>>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:49 PM Eugen Kosteev < > >> [email protected]> 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> 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 > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 > >> > > > -- Eugene
