There are some strange behaviours in the calendar entry - I think you cannot add yourself, only guests can add others :) I've added you Eugen, maybe if someone wants to be also added - please post here with your gmail/calendar addresses.
J. On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:56 PM Eugen Kosteev <eu...@kosteev.com> wrote: > > Hi Julien. > > Can you, please, include me there as well: eu...@kosteev.com or > kost...@google.com. > Looking forward to see presentation. > > - Eugene > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:36 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid> > 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 <jul...@astronomer.io> > > 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 <ja...@potiuk.com> 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 > > >> <jul...@astronomer.io.invalid> 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 <ja...@potiuk.com> > > 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 <ja...@potiuk.com> > > 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 < > > >> 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. > > >> >>>>>> 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 <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 > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Eugene --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
