Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
shahar1 closed issue #61766: Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
wilsonhooi86 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3944723408 > All my changes look good! Hi @henry3260 , thank you so much for completing this PR for GlueJobOperator. However, I think it is not working from my end. I created an issue for your reference: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/62353 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
csp33 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3909442365 I think I found a bug in the fab provider https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/62028 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
potiuk commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3902017577 I created an issue for that https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61913 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
potiuk commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3902002494 @shahar1 @vincbeck @o-nikolas -> just a small warning. Seems that celery provider caused problems when I run tests for 2.11.1 ```python Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/jobs/scheduler_job_runner.py", line 1008, in _execute self._run_scheduler_loop() File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/jobs/scheduler_job_runner.py", line 1153, in _run_scheduler_loop executor.heartbeat() File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/traces/tracer.py", line 58, in wrapper return func(*args, **kwargs) File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/executors/base_executor.py", line 244, in heartbeat self.trigger_tasks(open_slots) File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/traces/tracer.py", line 58, in wrapper return func(*args, **kwargs) File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/executors/base_executor.py", line 383, in trigger_tasks self._process_tasks(task_tuples) File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/providers/celery/executors/celery_executor.py", line 150, in _process_tasks task_tuples_to_send = [task_tuple[:3] + (self.team_name,) for task_tuple in task_tuples] File "/home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/airflow/providers/celery/executors/celery_executor.py", line 150, in task_tuples_to_send = [task_tuple[:3] + (self.team_name,) for task_tuple in task_tuples] AttributeError: 'CeleryExecutor' object has no attribute 'team_name' ``` See https://github.com/apache/airflow/actions/runs/22018420629/job/63624588757?pr=61909 - this one contains the latest celary provider released and it might need some follow-up release. I do not think we need to something **quick** for it, I will exclude 3.16.0 celery provider from airflow 2.11.1 build but we will have to fix it for 2.11 compatibility. Probably we did not have enough unit tests to cover it - only Docker compose tests in 2.11.1 detected it. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
shahar1 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3901276939 > It looks like [#61441](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61441) broke EKS operators with an api version mismatch. [#61891](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61891) should be the two-line fix. Is there any chance we can squeeze 61891 in this release, or drop 61441 from this release? Unfortunately, there's no practical way* in the release procedure to drop specific commits from the release or squeeze changes into it, so I'll just exclude it from the upcoming release and release it with the fix in RC2 (hopefully during this week). \*If we make any changes to source code during the release process, we need to run the both the technical procedure and PMC votes all over again -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
ferruzzi commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3900069491 It looks like https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61441 broke EKS operators with an api version mismatch. https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61891 should be the two-line fix. Is there any chance we can squeeze 61891 in this release, or drop 61441 from this release? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
vaefremov95 commented on issue #61766:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-398582
@shahar1
> Thanks for the detailed info! If it happens regardless of the new feature
(which means that it also happens in older versions), and you're not able to
fix it in the next few days - then please create an issue and I'll release it
as-is. If it's a regression due to the new parameter, or you're able to fix it
fast - I prefer to postpone the release until it's fixed.
>
> Please let me know ASAP, the vote ends in less than 10 hours (if you don't
update by then, I'll release it). Thanks again!
Tested with airflow 2.11 and apache-airflow-providers-imap==3.10.3.
There are 3 emails with same files. Downloading only 1 .
```
[2026-02-13, 22:43:03 UTC] {imap.py:336} INFO - Found attachment: test.xlsx
[2026-02-13, 22:43:03 UTC] {imap.py:336} INFO - Found attachment: test.xlsx
[2026-02-13, 22:43:03 UTC] {imap.py:336} INFO - Found attachment: test.xlsx
[2026-02-13, 22:43:03 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments without max_mails: 1
```
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/50a88dce-b532-4767-b23d-753989cc1262";
/>
Same picturewith airflow 2.10.5 and apache-airflow-providers-imap==3.8.0.
So i guess this is default behavior for older versions.
I wont be able to fix this in the next few days and will create an issue.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
shahar1 commented on issue #61766:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3899855176
> HI! I have tested new feature **max_mails** added in PR
[#60963](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/60963) with my test Airflow
Deployment (Airflow==2.11. Python 3.12.3). I used my company's production IMAP
server and real-case scenario. I have 3 emails returned by filter, each with 2
attachments, but I needed to retrieve only last mail. I tested methods
_has_mail_attachment_, _retrieve_mail_attachments_, and
_download_mail_attachments_ with different settings for max_mails. Here are
some logs:
>
> ```
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - attachemnts found
with max_mails: True
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - count attachments
without max_mails: 6
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - count attachments
with max_mails=1: 2
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - count attachments
with max_mails=1 and latest_only: 1
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:38 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments without max_mails: 4
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:39 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments with max_mails=1: 2
> [2026-02-13, 20:50:40 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments with max_mails=1 and latest_only: 1
> ```
>
> Everything works as expected, exept one detail. Since some files have same
names, _download_mail_attachments_ method overwrites them. So instead of 6
files I get 4. I guess that this is the default behavior of this method, that
occurs regardless of new feature **max_mails** but nevertheless it should be
fixed. I will make additional research on this problem and will create an issue
if my suspicions are correct
Thanks for the detailed info!
If it happens regardless of the new feature (which means that it also
happens in older versions), and you're not able to fix it in the next few days
- then please create an issue and I'll release it as-is.
If it's a regression due to the new parameter, or you're able to fix it fast
- I prefer to postpone the release until it's fixed.
Please let me know ASAP, the vote ends in less than 10 hours (if you don't
update by then, I'll release it).
Thank you!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
vaefremov95 commented on issue #61766:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3899633514
HI!
I have tested new feature **max_mails** added in PR #60963 with my test
Airflow Deployment (Airflow==2.11. Python 3.12.3).
I used my company's production IMAP server and real-case scenario. I have 3
emails returned by filter, each with 2 attachments, but I needed to retrieve
only last mail.
I tested methods _has_mail_attachment_, _retrieve_mail_attachments_, and
_download_mail_attachments_ with different settings for max_mails.
Here are some logs:
```
[2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - attachemnts found
with max_mails: True
[2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - count attachments
without max_mails: 6
[2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - count attachments
with max_mails=1: 2
[2026-02-13, 20:50:34 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - count attachments
with max_mails=1 and latest_only: 1
[2026-02-13, 20:50:38 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments without max_mails: 4
[2026-02-13, 20:50:39 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments with max_mails=1: 2
[2026-02-13, 20:50:40 UTC] {logging_mixin.py:190} INFO - downloaded
attachments with max_mails=1 and latest_only: 1
```
Everything works as expected, exept one detail. Since some files have same
names, _download_mail_attachments_ method overwrites them. So instead of 6
files I get 4. I guess that this is the default behavior of this method, that
occurs regardless of new feature **max_mails** but nevertheless it should be
fixed.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
shahar1 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3891826110 Thanks @VladaZakharova and @gustavosaquino ! I'll exclude Google and Azure from upcoming release. CC: @dabla -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
gustavosaquino commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3891320866 Tested PR #60369 and not OK The default behavior of PowerBIDatasetRefreshOperator in version 12.9.0 is to wait for the dataset update status. When running the same DAG with version 13.0.0rc1, this default behavior is changed to trigger the update and not wait for the response, and there is a warning in the logs about the new wait_for_completion parameter. `WARNING - The PowerBIDatasetRefreshOperator now always uses deferrable execution when wait_for_completion=True.` When setting the parameter in the DAG to True, the operator does not wait for the dataset update status, and when set to False, it displays an execution error as shown below: ``` [2026-02-12T14:23:52.261194Z] INFO - Triggered dataset refresh (fire-and-forget) [2026-02-12T14:23:52.261475Z] ERROR - Task failed with exceptionTypeError: cannot serialize object of type File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/execution_time/task_runner.py, line 1068 in run File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/execution_time/task_runner.py, line 1477 in _execute_task File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/bases/operator.py, line 417 in wrapper File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/providers/microsoft/azure/operators/powerbi.py, line 134 in execute File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/execution_time/task_runner.py, line 421 in xcom_push File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/execution_time/task_runner.py, line 588 in _xcom_push File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/bases/xcom.py, line 77 in set File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/bases/xcom.py, line 339 in serialize_value File /home/airflow/.local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/serialization/serde.py, line 193 in serialize ``` -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
Eason09053360 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3890887704 Tested issue #61673 - ModuleNotFoundError fix works perfectly! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
VladaZakharova commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3890780678 There are 2 known issues: 1 in the operator of Gemini and serialization, and another one for ray job in the system test. I will ping you in those PRs for you to include them in RC2 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
shahar1 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3890299442 > -1 For Google provider. Please, move Google provider to RC2 Could please elaborate on the reason(s)? From what you told me in private, it seems to do with compatibility of Ray with Airflow 2.11. 1. How and when do you plan to fix it so I could release RC2? 2. Were there issues with system tests of other Google-related commits included in current RC? Thank you! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
VladaZakharova commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3889830615 -1 For Google provider. Please, move Google provider to RC2 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
amoghrajesh commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3889060211 My changes: - Compat change, non functional: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61157 - Actual change: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61343, tested it and works fine - Simple sanitisation change: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61624, works fine as well -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
nailo2c commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3887587866 I finished my tests (#61701, #61188); they are all looking good :) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
anishgirianish commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3887588967 Tested PR #60805 in `apache-airflow-providers-cncf-kubernetes==10.12.4rc1`. Verified that the `.get()` fix for optional `reason` and `message` fields in `ContainerStateWaiting` is present in the RC package. Simulated the scenario where a container status has a `"waiting"` state with no `"reason"` key (optional per K8s API spec) — no `KeyError` is raised, and the pod correctly stays in pending state. Fix works as expected. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
potiuk commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3887270526 Indeed. Good job. All my changes are in !! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
jscheffl commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3887256533 Thanks Shahr for preparing release! +1 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Reproducible package build, Licenses, Signatures I did my typical test round with new providers and used Fab and EdgeExecutor with the "Integration Test" Dag in Airflow 3.0.6 and 3.1.7 and latest main - no errors seen. All good. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
henry3260 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3886310713 All my changes look good! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
SameerMesiah97 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3886217606 I can verify that the changes introduced by PRs #61272, #61145, #61051 are working as intended in `apache-airflow-providers-amazon==9.22.0rc1`. The changes in #61010 could not be fully verified due to personal AWS account restrictions but the unit tests indicate that it will work for users. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
akshaykumarsalunke commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3886188076 Tested PR #60440 on AWS EMR, looks good! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
bugraoz93 commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3885745501 Hey Shahar, thanks for bringing this together! My changes looks good, -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
andreahlert commented on issue #61766: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3884404132 Tested PR #61616 both RCs on Windows/Python 3.12, anyio changes are there. Standard provider imports fine. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [I] Status of testing Providers that were prepared on February 10, 2026 [airflow]
idrisakorede commented on issue #61766:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/61766#issuecomment-3883480409
I don't currently have access to an EKS environment to test the RC, but
I've verified the code changes are correct (`. {credentials_file}` and `v1`
API version). The fix addresses the original issue #60269 as intended.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 10:40 AM Shahar Epstein ***@***.***>
wrote:
> *shahar1* left a comment (apache/airflow#61766)
>
>
> I vouch for most of the changes to the GCP provider, I'll be happy for
> someone to double-check those that are currently unchecked. Thanks in
> advance!
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> ,
> or unsubscribe
>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
