Hey all,
I have cut Airflow Backport Providers 2020.5.20rc2. This email is
calling a vote on the release,
which will last for 72 hours - which means that it will end on Fri May
22 18:15:00 CEST 2020.
The main differences from RC1 are (Thanks Ash for those comments and
suggestions. it's
the first
As explained before I am cancelling the vote for rc1 and will send a vote
for rc2 in a moment.
J.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:02 PM Jarek Potiuk
wrote:
> Yep. Good point. It has no chance to work. I will remove it from release
> list.
>
> J.
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:40 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor
Fantastic! Great job Ash!
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> PR created that I think will fix it
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/8909
>
> -ash
>
> On May 19 2020, at 10:08 am, Jarek Potiuk
> wrote:
>
> > Issue created:
PR created that I think will fix it https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/8909
-ash
On May 19 2020, at 10:08 am, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Issue created: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/8908
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:06 AM Asif Saif Uddin wrote:
>
>> value = Exception('>
value = Exception('((\'(psycopg2.errors.UniqueViolation)
duplicate key value violates..."pg_type_typname_nsp_index"\\nDETAIL: Key
(typname, typnamespace)=(celery_tasksetmeta, 2200) already
exists.\\n\',))')
tb = None
def reraise(tp, value, tb=None):
"""Reraise exception."""
if value.__traceback__
Cool. I thought it's a misunderstanding :). Great it is clear now!
J.
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:17 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> Yes, sorry I got completely the wrong idea somehow. This makes sense,
> and thank you for patiently explaining it to me until I got it!
>
> My main reason for
Yes, sorry I got completely the wrong idea somehow. This makes sense,
and thank you for patiently explaining it to me until I got it!
My main reason for questioning was not this specific feature, but the
gradual "scope creep" of Airflow operators.
One of the hardest things we as project
Issue created: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/8908
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:06 AM Asif Saif Uddin wrote:
> value = Exception(' \'sqlalchemy.exc.IntegrityError\'>((\'(psycopg2.errors.UniqueViolation)
> duplicate key value violates..."pg_type_typname_nsp_index"\\nDETAIL: Key
>
Should we create an issue? Maybe Asif (CC) from Celery team will be
able to help us?
Tomek
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:39 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>
> I'll take a look. I'm surprised by that error though, it looks like two
> processes are racing to create a table, and not dealing with
I'll take a look. I'm surprised by that error though, it looks like two
processes are racing to create a table, and not dealing with losing.
(I suspect we can fix it by pre-creating that tbl,/calling something before we
spawn processes, but this really is a bug in celery.)
On 19 May 2020
Yep. That is exactly why I think we need the hooks. Is it possible you
donate your code for the Vault Hook implementation ?
I would love to use it for my implementation. (And make you or whoever the
author is as co-author :)
J.
wt., 19 maj 2020, 09:41 użytkownik Nathan Hadfield
napisał:
>
Jarek,
We are already using the secret backend for Airflow variables. But, because of
the example I explained and also a programmatic need to update our GCP Airflow
connections every day, then we still have to maintain a secondary, custom
method for Vault authentication and manipulation of
Hello Everyone, but mostly I think Kamil, Ash, Kaxil,
I think we need someone who knows a bit more about Celery Executor to
stabilise one of the tests that is transiently failing. I think this
started to appear recently (so likely it is one of the optimizations
implemented recently)
You can see
Let me start again from scratch and use KMS as an example. Maybe - again -
we understand things differently:
Just to start KMSHook -> has two methods: "encrypt" and "decrypt". I would
continue to use that as a base.
Again let me repeat that. I do not want to implement a generic SecretHook!
I
14 matches
Mail list logo
