> "enable" tests for 2.8 and 2.7 separately Just for clarification, this is only related to the provider's tests, right?
On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 13:15, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > Regarding Airflow 2.7 and Airflow 2.8 in the time we are ready to move > forward to the initial version of Airflow 3 providers might already drop > support of these versions in providers. > Airflow 2.7 in the mid of August 2024 > Airflow 2.8 in the mid of December 2024 > > Yep. But also "here and now" those compatibility tests might help us to > find some hidden incompatibilities (and prevent adding future ones). We can > see how much complexity we are dealing with when we attempt to enable the > tests for 2.8 and then 2.7 and decide if it's worth it. The change I added > makes it easy to just "enable" tests for 2.8 and 2.7 separately. > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:10 AM Andrey Anshin <andrey.ans...@taragol.is> > wrote: > > > BTW, forget to mention that we should also check Pytest: Good Integration > > Practices from > > https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/explanation/goodpractices.html > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 13:07, Andrey Anshin <andrey.ans...@taragol.is> > > wrote: > > > > > I think the current solution with run tests against installed packages > > > might help with future modifications and develop new dev experience. > And > > > what is more important is help to find problems and incompatibilities > of > > > providers with the previous version of Airflow "here and now". > > > > > > Regarding Airflow 2.7 and Airflow 2.8 in the time we are ready to move > > > forward to the initial version of Airflow 3 providers might already > drop > > > support of these versions in providers. > > > Airflow 2.7 in the mid of August 2024 > > > Airflow 2.8 in the mid of December 2024 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 12:32, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > >> And yes - as we get down to 2.8 and 2.7 it might be possible that we > > will > > >> already implement some of the simplifications you mentioned as it > might > > be > > >> easier than adding back-compatiblity to the current ways. I assume it > > will > > >> be `quite` a bit harder to make our test suite work with Airflow 2.8 > and > > >> then 2.7 - so it might be that some of the refactors and changes will > > need > > >> to be applied to make it easier to maintain. > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Yep. I think these are all good ideas, and I think this should be > part > > >> of > > >> > our big Airflow 2 vs. Airflow 3 discussion. Almost as important as > > what > > >> is > > >> > in and what is out is where and how development of different > > components > > >> > happen. Same repo? Different repos? Different branches? Single > > monorepo > > >> for > > >> > Airflow2 + Providers, and separate repo for Airflow 3 only? Keeping > > >> > monorepo for Airflow 3 ? How do we cherry-pick? > > >> > I think we need to "design" the developer experience as part of our > > >> > discussion - and it should be a serious discussion considering all > the > > >> > consequences. How do we test things together? How do we test > > >> > back-compatibility? How do we prevent Airflow 3 PRs breaking > > providers? > > >> > Should we separate-out Helm chart as well? There are many many > > questions > > >> > and multiple possible answers. > > >> > > > >> > But let's not derail this discussion - my proposal is to use what we > > >> have > > >> > now and simply get back-compatibility working without changing the > > >> > structure (yet), but as part of Airflow 2 vs. Airflow 3 we should > make > > >> sure > > >> > this topic is fully covered and we get to consensus on the answers. > > >> > > > >> > J > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 9:17 AM Andrey Anshin < > > andrey.ans...@taragol.is > > >> > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Great job, Jarek! > > >> >> > > >> >> I would have some proposals, which should be considered as a long > > term > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> We should rework our test structure to fully run provider tests > > without > > >> >> touching the Core tests. > > >> >> The main problem here is that we configure a lot of things into the > > >> root > > >> >> conftest.py which might be a problem in case of running tests on a > > >> >> provider > > >> >> under a different version of the airflow. Core itself might use > > >> something > > >> >> which was only added in a recent version of Airflow, but this > should > > >> not > > >> >> be > > >> >> a case in case of providers. So we should slightly change the test > > >> >> structure, unless we could decouple providers for the mono repo > (i'm > > >> not > > >> >> sure it is even a case in the future). E.g. move tests/providers to > > >> >> tests/providers/unit and after so w would have > > >> >> tests/system/{unit|system|integration|conftest.py) maybe also some > > >> helpers > > >> >> for providers should be moved into the tests/providers/helpers (I > > don't > > >> >> like name helpers but this only for the reference). In the same > > momemen > > >> >> move core related tests to the tests/core (name could be different) > > and > > >> >> create structure like > > >> >> tests/core/{unit|system|integration|helpers|conftest.py}. And move > as > > >> much > > >> >> as possible from tests/conftest.py to appropriate in > > >> >> tests/{core|providers}/conftest.py > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Providers tests should not be relied on DB backend, and could be > > easily > > >> >> run > > >> >> on any of the supported, because providers not extend DB backend > > >> support > > >> >> DB, and if tests pass in core we take an assumption that providers > > >> could > > >> >> use any of them e.g. SQlite (preferable for setup in xdists) or > > >> Postgres. > > >> >> > > >> >> If we go even further we might want to move specific helpers in the > > >> >> separate test package, e.g `pytest-apache-airflow`, and move all > > common > > >> >> helpers and simple setup/configuration tests airflow environment > > >> (really > > >> >> simple one as first steps) and compatibility level, same as > provider > > I > > >> >> year > > >> >> after feature version released. We could test this package against > > >> >> different versions of airflow to make sure that within combination > > >> Airflow > > >> >> (2.7-2.9 + main) + `pytest-apache-airflow` we could run tests > against > > >> each > > >> >> provider. > > >> >> This pytest package also would be released, uploaded into the PyPI > > and > > >> >> could be installed via pip/uv however at least for the initial > stage > > it > > >> >> shouldn't be considered to use outside of Airflow and Airflow > > Providers > > >> >> CI, > > >> >> in another word it is no GA for the end users. This might be > changed > > in > > >> >> the > > >> >> future but let's focus that this package only for Airflow > development > > >> >> internals > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 01:08, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Hello everyone, > > >> >> > > > >> >> > As part of preparation for the Airflow 3 move and (possible) > > provider > > >> >> > separation (I have some ideas how to do it but that should be a > > >> separate > > >> >> > discussion) I took on the task of improving our compatibility > tests > > >> for > > >> >> > Providers. I discussed it briefly with Kaxil and Ash and decided > to > > >> >> give it > > >> >> > a go and see what it takes. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The PR here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39513 > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I extended our "import" checks with checks that also run all > > provider > > >> >> unit > > >> >> > tests for specified airflow versions (for now 2.9.1 - but once we > > >> get it > > >> >> > merged/approved we can make sure the tests are working for 2.7 > and > > >> >> 2.8). We > > >> >> > will also be able to run "future" compatibility tests in case we > > >> decide > > >> >> to > > >> >> > leave providers aside from Airflow 3 and will be able to run the > > >> tests > > >> >> for > > >> >> > both`main` and `pypi`-released versions of airflow. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > A number of our tests rely on some internals of Airflow and they > > >> >> > implicitly rely on the fact that they are run directly in airflow > > >> source > > >> >> > tree - but there are not many of those - after some initial > > >> >> compatibility > > >> >> > fixes I got 50 or so tests failing for 2.9.1 (probably there will > > be > > >> >> more > > >> >> > for 2.8.0 and 2.7.0, but I want to make 2.9.1 works first). > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I almost got it working (few tests are still failing) with > > >> compatibility > > >> >> > for 2.9.1 but I will need some help from a few people - around > > >> >> > openlineage and serialization but also around recently improved > > >> >> try_number > > >> >> > :). I will reach out to the relevant people individually if we > see > > >> that > > >> >> as > > >> >> > a good idea. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > It requires some care when writing tests to make sure the tests > can > > >> be > > >> >> run > > >> >> > against installed airflow and not from sources. So in the future > > >> anyone > > >> >> > contributing provider changes will have to make sure the tests > pass > > >> also > > >> >> > for past airflow versions (there are simple instructions > explaining > > >> how > > >> >> to > > >> >> > do it with breeze). But once we merge it, this will be caught on > PR > > >> >> level > > >> >> > and should be easy to fix any of those problems. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The benefit of having the tests is that we not only do simple > > import > > >> >> tests > > >> >> > but actually run provider tests, the drawback is that sometimes > > tests > > >> >> will > > >> >> > have to be adapted to make sure they work also for installed > older > > >> >> airflow > > >> >> > versions (which is not always straightforward or easy and will > need > > >> some > > >> >> > compatibility code in tests - for example after recent rename of > > >> >> > airflow.models.ImportError to ParsingImportError we had to add > > >> >> compat.py to > > >> >> > test_utils and import ParsingImportError from there rather than > > from > > >> >> > Airflow directly in tests. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I don't think it's too controversial - being able to run unit > tests > > >> for > > >> >> > providers for old (and future) versions of Airflow is generally > > >> quite an > > >> >> > improvement in stability, but this adds a bit overhead on > > >> >> contributions, so > > >> >> > I am letting everyone here know it's coming, so that it's not a > > >> >> surprise to > > >> >> > contributors. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > J. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
