Agreed on not having extras apart from providers. On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 13:36, Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> Just checked, no this was in 2.10 releases. NM then. > > Still, I think we should not add new extras to `apache-airflow` in > general, and definitely not for anything other than direct provider > “short-names”. > > > -ash > > > On 11 Apr 2025, at 09:02, Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Oh hang on wait a moment. > > > > Is aiobotocore a new extra that is not available in 2.10.5 or any early > versions? > > > > If that is the case then I’d instead vote that we don’t add new extras > to `apache-airflow`, and we instead remove it. I grudgingly accept that > having `apache-airflow[amazon]` make sense, but `aiobotocore` isn’t the > name of the provider, and you need to know what it means anyway, so I don’t > think we should have it as an extra anywhere other than on the provider. > > > > -ash > > > >> On 11 Apr 2025, at 08:40, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> > >> A draft PR here (i will split it as there are few unrelated changes) > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49103 -> but it shows how we can > >> automatically set the min versions in "apache-airflow" meta-package > (with > >> 6-months-old provider versions). > >> > >> That will quite likely help to get the "Resolution too deep" error > solved, > >> and I think it has a nice property - that we can treat it as > "recommended" > >> range of versions for providers - while giving all the flexibility to > the > >> user to keep their old versions or downgrade. > >> > >> > >> J. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 7:01 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually what I see when I attempted to do it - is that even if we > >>> introduce it - it is not going to be a hard requirement. It is just a > soft > >>> limit when installing full apache-airflow[with extras]. > >>> > >>> It will be more of a default behaviour to limit the providers when > extras > >>> are used but will be easy to override and it will not apply when you > >>> install airflow-core /task-sdk/ providers directly. So yes - I think no > >>> real drawback > >>> > >>> This limits will only be on extras of the 'apache-airflow' and in case > >>> someone used the extras so far - the were not able to control the > version > >>> of provider that will be used anyway - and this only used a lower > version > >>> of provider than latest I'd some other package was installed at the > same > >>> time that was conflicting with latest provider.. > >>> > >>> Thoss limits are not going to be persistent, they are going to simply > be > >>> taken into account when apache-airflow{provider} is used and only for > the > >>> time of the installation. It will not prevent the user from > >>> upgrading/downgrading the provider later. And also user still be able > to > >>> remove extra and use the provider directly in the same `pip install` > >>> command > >>> > >>> I have a draft change that sets the lower bound to now() -6 months + > >>> manual overrides if we need to get some new provider limited to latest > >>> version this way for example. I am still coming back from US and will > be > >>> home later today and try it and I think some form of it will be good to > >>> have - 6 months seems reasonable and it will have the > 'self-maintenance' > >>> capability. > >>> > >>> J. > >>> > >>> czw., 10 kwi 2025, 22:46 użytkownik Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > >>> napisał: > >>> > >>>> There absolutely is a downside to the users — “forcing" users to > upgrade > >>>> providers along with Airflow version makes upgrades a much more > daunting > >>>> experience. > >>>> > >>>>> On 10 Apr 2025, at 21:31, Maciej Obuchowski <mobuchow...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> For OpenLineage we'd definitely like something like this. > >>>>> IMO there is no downside to restricting the providers to the latest > >>>>> released version. > >>>>> We could go with the chicken-egg for the next release - that would > add > >>>> at > >>>>> least one useful > >>>>> feature authored by Kacper Muda - > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/48941 > >>>>> but even without it it's not broken, just missing that feature. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> czw., 10 kwi 2025 o 21:49 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > napisał(a): > >>>>> > >>>>>> Accidentally It turned out - with today's investigation of why RC > >>>> images > >>>>>> are not building that it is VERY needed. It seems that `pip` > resolution > >>>>>> works currently with our meta-package in a very bad way. If in our > >>>>>> pyproject.toml we have just > >>>>>> "amazon' = "apache-airflow-providers-amazon", "google" = > >>>>>> "apache-airflow-providers-google" .... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> then > >>>>>> > >>>>>> apache-airflow[google,amazon] - will lead pip to download and try to > >>>>>> resolve ALL VERSIONS or apparently ALL providers that have ever been > >>>>>> released. That means we have 100 amazon, 100 google - and if you > have > >>>> more > >>>>>> extras - 10s or 100s of other providers to consider. And essentially > >>>> what > >>>>>> pip tries to do is - try all combinations of those to find out which > >>>> ones > >>>>>> are good. Or at least very, very big subset of those providers. > Which > >>>>>> actually explains the "Resolution Too Deep" problem we tried to > >>>> diagnose > >>>>>> and investigate over the last few weeks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So summarising: > >>>>>> * resolution too deep was actually "real" issue > >>>>>> * it was caused by no lower-bounds in providers in meta package > >>>>>> * we will have to set those lower-binds to something reasonable > (and I > >>>>>> might start later today with simply latest released versions if i > have > >>>>>> internet on my flight back from the US) > >>>>>> * and we will have to keep those min versions updated and bumped > >>>>>> periodically > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The last case is interesting - because it will finally force us to > >>>>>> introduce some policy on how old providers we support when we > release > >>>>>> airflow. With Airflow 3 I think we are good with basically "latest" > >>>>>> versions (and maybe get a few versions back for crucial providers). > >>>> But we > >>>>>> can discuss it later. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> J. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 2:49 PM Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I assume this is not necessary when the constraint is already set > on > >>>> the > >>>>>>> provider side? For example, FAB provider has a dependency on > Airflow 3 > >>>>>>> (`apache-airflow>=3.0.0` in `providers/fab/pyproject.toml`) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2025/04/10 17:22:13 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; Do people who work on some providers think that Airflow 3 > >>>> should > >>>>>>>> have minimum version of those? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> While discussing a question about chicken-egg providers with > Kaxil, I > >>>>>>>> realized that we can finally have min versions of providers easily > >>>>>> added > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> "apache-airflow" meta-package. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Simply speaking - we can say that for example > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> apache-airflow[openlineage] -> > >>>>>>> apache-airflow-providers-openlineage>=2.1.3 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Previously it was not that easy or straightforward, but now we > can do > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> easily - just changing: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "openlineage" = [ > >>>>>>>> "apache-airflow-providers-openlineage" > >>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "openlineage" = [ > >>>>>>>> "apache-airflow-providers-openlineage>=2.1.3" > >>>>>>>> ] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We will likely have to change the tooling a bit to adapt to RC / > Dev > >>>>>>>> packaging versions for chicken-egg-providers - but this should be > >>>>>> rather > >>>>>>>> easy. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And I think this is mostly about openlineage, standard, common and > >>>> all > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> other kinds of providers that are "special" in some ways. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Are we aware of some minimum versions we **SHOULD** put on those ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So the question is. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >
