Those look like great ideas. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 4:23 PM utkarsh sharma <utkarshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just forgot to mention in my previous mail, that I'm suggesting the above > changes since the storage is not the primary concern right now but I'm > happy to contribute either way. :) > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:43 PM utkarsh sharma <utkarshar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hey everyone, > > > > I have a couple of tasks in mind, that might aid in reducing the efforts > > while working with docs. Right now tasks listed below are difficult to > > achieve. > > > > 1. Adding a warning based on a specific provider/version of a > > provider/range of providers. Which was also the task that Ryan was > working > > on. > > 2. Altering a page layout or CSS for a specific provider. > > > > The issue while trying to achieve the above tasks is because of the > > pre-prepared static files we get as a final product of building documents > > with *breeze build-docs* in folder docs/_build. The files we get are > > self-sufficient to be hosted and they are really just used directly > leaving > > no room for customization of any sort. > > > > > > My proposal would be to break down this process as follows: > > > > 1. We can prepare partial documents as part of *breeze build-docs* which > > are only responsible for providing HTML to be populated within the Body > tag > > for a specific provider, and not the layout of the entire page. > > 2. We then copy partial static files to the Airflow-site repo within > > landing pages/site/layouts/docs. Where the layout of the page will be > > provided by `single.html`, a listing of all the providers will be > provided > > by `list.html`, which are standard hugo > > <https://gohugo.io/about/what-is-hugo/> features. Also, using static > > files from `sphinx_airflow_theme` which lives in the same repo, makes the > > changes on the CSS easy. > > 3. We can then use Hugo to generate static > > <https://gohugo.io/getting-started/quick-start/#publish-the-site> files > > and push them to the `gh-pages` branch to publish them using GitHub > pages. > > > > > > Doing the above changes will enable us to do the following: > > > > 1. Will give us more control to work on a specific > > provider/provider-version if we want by providing templates - > > https://gohugo.io/templates/lookup-order/ > > 2. We will have a specific code to look at depending on the changes one > > intends to make, right now if you don't know the flow it's a bit > difficult > > to pinpoint the code to change. > > 1. If we want to make changes to a specific provider's content we can do > > it Airflow's repo docs/<provider>/*.rst file. > > 2. If we have a change that affects multiple providers or versions we can > > do it on Airflow Website's repo. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Utkarsh Sharma > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 3:45 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > >> So it looks like we have some helping hands and we need someone to lead > it > >> :) (just saying). > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:15 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > +1 (non binding) from me on the thought of moving the older docs (~18 > >> > months seems ok) to an archive instead of the repository. > >> > > >> > Coming to the other problem of copying the built docs into > airflow-site > >> for > >> > releases, maybe we can fix that using a script? Open for thoughts > here. > >> > > >> > I would be very happy to help when we start taking this forward, I > have > >> > some experience in airflow-site and docs side as well. Feel free to > >> reach > >> > out over email or slack :) > >> > > >> > Thanks & Regards, > >> > Amogh Desai > >> > > >> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 3:08 AM Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > This definitely sounds like something that needs doing sooner rather > >> than > >> > > later. > >> > > > >> > > While I'd love to help, I'm not too experienced with this area so I > >> might > >> > > not be able to actually propose what changes need doing, but if > >> someone > >> > has > >> > > a path forward on this I can definitely contribute some time to help > >> out > >> > > given some guidance on what is needed. > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Aritra Basu > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, 2:19 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Some news here. > >> > > > > >> > > > I caught up with some infra changes that happened while I was > >> > travelling > >> > > - > >> > > > and I have just (with > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/pull/879) > >> > > > switched the "airflow-site" building to the new, self-hosted > >> > > "asf-runners". > >> > > > This is a new option that ASF infra has given to test for the ASF > >> > > projects > >> > > > - rather than relying on "public runners", we can switch to > >> self-hosted > >> > > > runners donated by Microsoft to the ASF. More info here: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=INFRA&title=ASF+Infra+provided+self-hosted+runners > >> > > > > >> > > > The most important result is that we now have a lot more > "breathing > >> > > space" > >> > > > for the docs building job. During the build we are using max 59% > of > >> the > >> > > > disk space - with 73GB used and 52GB free. > >> > > > > >> > > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > >> > > > overlay 124G 73G 52G 59% / > >> > > > > >> > > > This is - on one hand - good news (disk space is not an "acute" > >> issue > >> > any > >> > > > more), I think if someone would like to work on improving the docs > >> > > building > >> > > > of ours, they have much more breathing space to do so. > >> > > > But - clearly - it might mean that the incentive to work on it > >> > decreased > >> > > - > >> > > > because it "just works"). That's the bad effect of it. And I think > >> it's > >> > > not > >> > > > good, though the most I can do is to reiterate Ryan's concerns and > >> hope > >> > > we > >> > > > will get someone committing to improving this. > >> > > > > >> > > > I would strongly encourage those who want to improve it, to do > so. I > >> > > think > >> > > > - as Ryan stated - contributing to our docs is more complex than > it > >> > > should > >> > > > be and anyone who would like to contribute there is most welcome. > I > >> > very > >> > > > much share all the points that Ryan made and I think we should > >> welcome > >> > > any > >> > > > efforts to make it better. The lack of incremental/auto-build > >> support > >> > is > >> > > > especially troublesome for anyone who wants to contribute their > >> docs. > >> > > Happy > >> > > > to help anyone who would like to take on the task. > >> > > > > >> > > > Still - if we would like to move old docs outside as a first step, > >> I am > >> > > > happy to help anyone who would like to commit to doing it. > >> > > > > >> > > > J. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 3:27 PM Pierre Jeambrun < > >> pierrejb...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > +1 from moving archived docs outside of airflow-site. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Even if that might mean a little more maintenance in case we > need > >> to > >> > > > > propagate changes to all historical versions, we would have to > >> > handle 2 > >> > > > > repositories, but that seems like a minor downside compared to > the > >> > > > quality > >> > > > > of life improvement that it would bring for airflow-site > >> > contributions. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Le jeu. 19 oct. 2023 à 16:11, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> a > >> > écrit > >> > > : > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Let me just clarify (because that could be unclear) what my +1 > >> was > >> > > > about. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I was not talking (and I believe Ryan was not talking either) > >> about > >> > > > > > removing the old docs but about archiving them and serving > from > >> > > > elsewhere > >> > > > > > (cloud storage). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I think discussing changing to more shared HTML/JS/CSS is > also a > >> > good > >> > > > > idea > >> > > > > > to optimise it, but possibly can be handled separately as a > >> longer > >> > > > effort > >> > > > > > of redesigning how the docs are built. But by all means we > could > >> > also > >> > > > > work > >> > > > > > on that. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Maybe I jumped to conclusions, but the easiest, tactical > >> solution > >> > > (for > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > most acute issue - size) is we just move the old generated > HTML > >> > docs > >> > > > from > >> > > > > > the git repository of "airflow-site" and in the "github_pages" > >> > branch > >> > > > we > >> > > > > > replace it with redirecting of those pages to the files served > >> from > >> > > the > >> > > > > > cloud storage (and I believe this is what Ryan hinted at). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Those redirects could be automatically generated for all > >> > > > > > historical versions and they will be small. We are already > >> doing > >> > it > >> > > > for > >> > > > > > individual pages for navigating between versions, but we could > >> > easily > >> > > > > > replace all the historical docs with "<html><head><meta > >> > > > > > http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url= > >> > > > > > > >> https://new-archive-docs-airflow-url/airflow/version/document.url"; > >> > > > > > "/></head></html>". Low-tech, surely and "legacy", but it will > >> > solve > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > size problem instantly. We currently have 115.148 such files > >> which > >> > > will > >> > > > > go > >> > > > > > down to about ~20 MB of files which is peanuts, compared to > the > >> > > current > >> > > > > > 17GB (!) we have. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > We can also inject into the moved "storage" docs, the header > >> that > >> > > > informs > >> > > > > > that this is an old/archived documentation with single > redirect > >> to > >> > > > > > "live"/"stable" site for newer versions of docs (which I > believe > >> > > > sparked > >> > > > > > Ryan's work). This can be done at least as the "quick" > >> remediation > >> > > for > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > size issue and something that might allow the current scheme > to > >> > > > > > work without ever-growing repo/size and using space for the > >> build > >> > > > action. > >> > > > > > If we have such an automated mechanism in place, we could > >> > > periodically > >> > > > > > archive old docs. All that without changing the build process > of > >> > ours > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > simply keep old "past" docs elsewhere (still accessible for > >> users). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Not much should change for the users IMHO - if they go to the > >> old > >> > > > version > >> > > > > > of the docs or use old, archived URLs, they would end up > seeing > >> the > >> > > > > > same content/navigation they see today (with extra information > >> it's > >> > > an > >> > > > > old > >> > > > > > version and served from a different URL). > >> > > > > > When they go to the "old" version of documentation they could > be > >> > > > > redirected > >> > > > > > to the new one - same HTML but hosted on cloud storage, fully > >> > > > statically. > >> > > > > > We already do that with "redirect" mechanism. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > In the meantime, someone could also work on a strategic > >> solution - > >> > > and > >> > > > > > changing the current build process, but this is - I think a > >> > > different - > >> > > > > > and much more complex and requiring a lot of effort - step. > And > >> it > >> > > > could > >> > > > > > simply end up with regenerating whatever is left as "live" > >> > > > documentation > >> > > > > > (leaving the archive docs intact). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > That's at least what I see as a possible set of steps to take. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > J. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 2:14 PM utkarsh sharma < > >> > > utkarshar...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hey everyone, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, Ryan for stating the thread :) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Big +1 For archiving docs older than 18 months. We can still > >> make > >> > > the > >> > > > > > older > >> > > > > > > docs available in `rst` doc form. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But eventually, we might again run into this problem because > >> of > >> > the > >> > > > > > growing > >> > > > > > > no. of providers. I think the main reason for this issue is > >> the > >> > > > > generated > >> > > > > > > static HTML pages and the way we cater to them using GitHub > >> > Pages. > >> > > > The > >> > > > > > > generated pages have lots of common code > >> > > > > > > HTML(headers/navigation/breadcrumbs/footer etc.) CSS, JS > >> which is > >> > > > > > repeated > >> > > > > > > for every provider and every version of that provider. If we > >> > have a > >> > > > > more > >> > > > > > > dynamic way(Django/Flask Servers) of catering the documents > we > >> > can > >> > > > save > >> > > > > > all > >> > > > > > > the space for common HTML/CSS/JS. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But the downsides of this approach are: > >> > > > > > > 1. We need to have a server > >> > > > > > > 2. Also require changes in the existing document build > >> process to > >> > > > only > >> > > > > > > produce partial HTML documents. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > Utkarsh Sharma > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:08 PM Jarek Potiuk < > >> ja...@potiuk.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Yes. Moving the old version to somewhere that we can > >> > keep/archive > >> > > > > > static > >> > > > > > > > historical versions of those historical docs and publish > >> them > >> > > from > >> > > > > > there. > >> > > > > > > > What you proposed is exactly the solution I thought might > be > >> > best > >> > > > as > >> > > > > > > well. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It would be a great task to contribute to the stability of > >> our > >> > > docs > >> > > > > > > > generation in the future. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think it's a matter of discussing in detail how to > >> do > >> > it > >> > > > (18 > >> > > > > > > months > >> > > > > > > > is a good start and you can parameterize it), It's the > >> matter > >> > of > >> > > > > > > > someone committing to it and doing it simply :). > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So yes I personally am all for it and if I understand > >> correctly > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > you > >> > > > > > > > are looking for agreement on doing it, big +1 from my > side - > >> > > happy > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > help > >> > > > > > > > with providing access to our S3 buckets. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > J. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 5:39 AM Ryan Hatter > >> > > > > > > > <ryan.hat...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > *tl;dr* > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. The GitHub Action for building docs is running out > >> of > >> > > > space. > >> > > > > I > >> > > > > > > > think > >> > > > > > > > > we should archive really old documentation for large > >> > > packages > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > cloud > >> > > > > > > > > storage. > >> > > > > > > > > 2. Contributing to and building Airflow docs is hard. > >> We > >> > > > should > >> > > > > > > > migrate > >> > > > > > > > > to a framework, preferably one that uses markdown > >> > (although > >> > > I > >> > > > > > > > > acknowledge > >> > > > > > > > > rst -> md will be a massive overhaul). > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > *Problem Summary* > >> > > > > > > > > I recently set out to implement what I thought would be > a > >> > > > > > > straightforward > >> > > > > > > > > feature: warn users when they are viewing documentation > >> for > >> > > > > > non-current > >> > > > > > > > > versions of Airflow and link them to the current/stable > >> > version > >> > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34639>. Jed > >> pointed > >> > me > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > airflow-site <https://github.com/apache/airflow-site> > >> repo, > >> > > > which > >> > > > > > > > contains > >> > > > > > > > > all of the archived docs (that is, documentation for > >> > > non-current > >> > > > > > > > versions), > >> > > > > > > > > and from there, I ran into a brick wall. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I want to raise some concerns that I've developed after > >> > trying > >> > > to > >> > > > > > > > > contribute what feel like a couple reasonably small docs > >> > > updates: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. airflow-site > >> > > > > > > > > 1. Elad pointed out the problem posed by the sheer > >> size > >> > > of > >> > > > > > > archived > >> > > > > > > > > docs > >> > > > > > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CCPRP7943/p1697009000242369?thread_ts=1696973512.004229&cid=CCPRP7943 > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (more > >> > > > > > > > > on this later). > >> > > > > > > > > 2. The airflow-site repo is confusing, and rather > >> > poorly > >> > > > > > > > documented. > >> > > > > > > > > 1. Hugo (static site generator) exists, but > >> appears > >> > to > >> > > > > only > >> > > > > > be > >> > > > > > > > > used for the landing pages > >> > > > > > > > > 2. In order to view any documentation locally > >> other > >> > > than > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > landing pages, you'll need to run the site.sh > >> script > >> > > > then > >> > > > > > > > > copy the output > >> > > > > > > > > from one dir to another? > >> > > > > > > > > 3. All of the archived docs are raw HTML, making > >> > > migrating > >> > > > > to a > >> > > > > > > > > static site generator a significant challenge, > which > >> > > makes > >> > > > it > >> > > > > > > > > difficult to > >> > > > > > > > > prevent the archived docs from continuing to grow > >> and > >> > > grow. > >> > > > > > > > > Perhaps this is the > >> > > > > > > > > wheel Khaleesi was referring to > >> > > > > > > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-rxmk6zPxA>? > >> > > > > > > > > 2. airflow > >> > > > > > > > > 1. Building Airflow docs is a challenge. It takes > >> > several > >> > > > > > minutes > >> > > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > > doesn't support auto-build, so the slightest issue > >> > could > >> > > > > > require > >> > > > > > > > > waiting > >> > > > > > > > > again and again until the changes are just so. I > >> tried > >> > > > > > > implementing > >> > > > > > > > > sphinx-autobuild < > >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-autobuild> > >> > > > > > > > > to no avail. > >> > > > > > > > > 2. Sphinx/restructured text has a steep learning > >> curve. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > *The most acute issue: disk space* > >> > > > > > > > > The size of the archived docs is causing the docs build > >> > GitHub > >> > > > > Action > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > almost run out of space. From the "Build site" Action > >> from a > >> > > > couple > >> > > > > > > weeks > >> > > > > > > > > ago > >> > > > > > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/actions/runs/6419529645/job/17432628458 > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (expand > >> > > > > > > > > the build site step, scroll all the way to the bottom, > >> expand > >> > > the > >> > > > > `df > >> > > > > > > -h` > >> > > > > > > > > command), we can see the GitHub Action runner (or > whatever > >> > it's > >> > > > > > called) > >> > > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > > nearly running out of space: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > df -h > >> > > > > > > > > *Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on* > >> > > > > > > > > /dev/root 84G 82G 2.1G 98% / > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The available space is down to 1.8G on the most recent > >> Action > >> > > > > > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/actions/runs/6564727255/job/17831714176 > >> > > > > > > > > >. > >> > > > > > > > > If we assume that trend is accurate, we have about two > >> months > >> > > > > before > >> > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > Action runner runs out of disk space. Here's a breakdown > >> of > >> > the > >> > > > > space > >> > > > > > > > > consumed by the 10 largest package documentation > >> directories: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > du -h -d 1 docs-archive/ | sort -h -r > >> > > > > > > > > * 14G* docs-archive/ > >> > > > > > > > > *4.0G* docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-google > >> > > > > > > > > *3.2G* docs-archive//apache-airflow > >> > > > > > > > > *1.7G* docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-amazon > >> > > > > > > > > *560M* > >> docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-azure > >> > > > > > > > > *254M* > >> docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes > >> > > > > > > > > *192M* > docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive > >> > > > > > > > > *153M* docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-snowflake > >> > > > > > > > > *139M* docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-databricks > >> > > > > > > > > *104M* docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-docker > >> > > > > > > > > *101M* docs-archive//apache-airflow-providers-mysql > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > *Proposed solution: Archive old docs html for large > >> packages > >> > to > >> > > > > cloud > >> > > > > > > > > storage* > >> > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to truly archive > >> the > >> > > docs > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > some > >> > > > > > > > > of the older versions of these packages. Perhaps the > last > >> 18 > >> > > > > months? > >> > > > > > > > Maybe > >> > > > > > > > > we could drop the html in a blob storage bucket with > >> > > instructions > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > > building the docs if absolutely necessary? > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > *Improving docs building moving forward* > >> > > > > > > > > There's an open Issue < > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/issues/719 > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > > migrating the docs to a framework, but it's not at all a > >> > > > > > > straightforward > >> > > > > > > > > task for the archived docs. I think that we should > >> institute > >> > a > >> > > > > policy > >> > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > > archiving old documentation to cloud storage after X > time > >> and > >> > > > use a > >> > > > > > > > > framework for building docs in a scalable and > sustainable > >> way > >> > > > > moving > >> > > > > > > > > forward. Maybe we could chat with iceberg folks about > how > >> > they > >> > > > > moved > >> > > > > > > from > >> > > > > > > > > mkdocs to hugo? < > >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/3616 > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Shoutout to Utkarsh for helping me through all this! > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
