Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on June 18, 2021 #16456

Closed
29 of 73 tasks
potiuk opened this issue Jun 15, 2021 · 35 comments
Closed
29 of 73 tasks

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on June 18, 2021 #16456

potiuk opened this issue Jun 15, 2021 · 35 comments
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases

Comments

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Jun 15, 2021

I have a kind request for all the contributors to the latest provider packages release.
Could you help us to test the RC versions of the providers and let us know in the comment,
if the issue is addressed there.

Providers that need testing

Those are providers that require testing as there were some substantial changes introduced:

Provider airbyte: 2.0.0rc2

Provider amazon: 2.0.0rc2

Provider apache.spark: 2.0.0rc2

Provider cncf.kubernetes: 2.0.0rc2

Provider dingding: 2.0.0rc2

Provider discord: 2.0.0rc2

Provider docker: 2.0.0rc2

Provider elasticsearch: 2.0.1rc1

Provider google: 4.0.0rc2

Provider hashicorp: 2.0.0rc2

Provider http: 2.0.0rc2

Provider microsoft.azure: 3.0.0rc2

Provider odbc: 2.0.0rc2

Provider opsgenie: 2.0.0rc2

Provider oracle: 2.0.0rc2

Provider papermill: 2.0.0rc2

Provider plexus: 2.0.0rc2

Provider postgres: 2.0.0rc2

Provider samba: 2.0.0rc2

Provider sftp: 2.0.0rc2

Provider slack: 4.0.0rc2

Provider snowflake: 2.0.0rc2

Provider ssh: 2.0.0rc2

Providers for which previous RC was fully tested (thanks @levyitay !)

Provider qubole: 2.0.0rc2

Providers that do not need testing

Those are providers that were either doc-only or had changes that do not require testing.

@potiuk potiuk added the kind:meta High-level information important to the community label Jun 15, 2021
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 15, 2021

This would be great it we could have confirmation for most of the providers by Friday afternoon, so that I could release them then :)

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 15, 2021

@jmelot Also a kind request for you - it's the first release of Asana provider, so if you could test it as well and let us know in the comment, it would be great: https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-asana/1.0.0rc1

@zhzhang
Copy link
Contributor

zhzhang commented Jun 15, 2021

Tested postgres connection changes on a Resdhift cluster, looks good to me.

@Goodkat
Copy link
Contributor

Goodkat commented Jun 15, 2021

Tested odbc connection, it works as expected with boolean parameters now:
#15016 (comment)

@jmelot
Copy link
Contributor

jmelot commented Jun 15, 2021

Tested Asana provider, all seems to be well!

@nlecoy
Copy link
Contributor

nlecoy commented Jun 16, 2021

I've been using the fix of #15926 for work and everything looks fine! Also, I tested #15817 and its working too.

@pavelhlushchanka
Copy link
Contributor

The package description says that the provider can be installed on top of existing airflow 2.*. I'm installing amazon provider and it requires airflow 2.1.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 16, 2021

The package description says that the provider can be installed on top of existing airflow 2.*. I'm installing amazon provider and it requires airflow 2.1.

Yep. We have an enty in changelog about it with warning. Do you think it's not enough ?

@pavelhlushchanka
Copy link
Contributor

I tested #15173 and #15848. Works fine.

@pavelhlushchanka
Copy link
Contributor

pavelhlushchanka commented Jun 16, 2021

The package description says that the provider can be installed on top of existing airflow 2.*. I'm installing amazon provider and it requires airflow 2.1.

Yep. We have an enty in changelog about it with warning. Do you think it's not enough ?

@potiuk I believe it's a bit confusing. If such info is added, then it should be precise. But it's up to you.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 16, 2021

@potiuk I believe it's a bit confusing. If such info is added, then it should be precise. But it's up to you.

I will ask others what they think. I am inclined to release new rc for that together with elasticsearch (but let's continue testing).

@amatellanes
Copy link
Contributor

I tested #15680 and it works fine 👍

@levyitay
Copy link
Contributor

tested Qubole changes, looks good

@flolas
Copy link
Contributor

flolas commented Jun 16, 2021

Tested #16280 in prod env with k8s, it works fine.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 18, 2021

@codenamestif (and others) - yeah it's too misleading indeed. I cancelled the vote and we have updated/fixed a few more things in the meantime. I will keep the test status for those providers that's been tested and will update the issue with the new changes later today when I release new RCs./

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 18, 2021

This will be the new README. Note 2.1+ and apache-airflow<=2.1.0 dependency first on the list.

Package apache-airflow-providers-amazon
------------------------------------------------------

Amazon integration (including `Amazon Web Services (AWS) <https://aws.amazon.com/>`__).


Release: 2.0.0

Provider package
----------------

This is a provider package for ``amazon`` provider. All classes for this provider package
are in ``airflow.providers.amazon`` python package.

Installation
------------

You can install this package on top of an existing airflow 2.1+ installation via
``pip install apache-airflow-providers-amazon``

PIP requirements
----------------

==================  ====================
PIP package         Version required
==================  ====================
``apache-airflow``  ``>=2.1.0``
``boto3``           ``>=1.15.0,<1.18.0``
``watchtower``      ``~=1.0.6``
==================  ====================

@fredthomsen
Copy link
Contributor

Tested SimpleHttpOperator for #15605. All good.

@potiuk potiuk changed the title Status of testing Providers that were prepared on June 15, 2021 Status of testing Providers that were prepared on June 18, 2021 Jun 18, 2021
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 18, 2021

As new package RCs are released, I encourage those from the list who have not done so, to double-check if the packages are working fine with their changes. The voting time has been prolonged to Tue 22 Jun 21:29:59 CEST 2021.

Looking forward to your thumb-ups :)

@TAKEDA-Takashi
Copy link
Contributor

Tested #16189. Works fine.

@dejii
Copy link
Contributor

dejii commented Jun 21, 2021

Tested #15541. Works as expected.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 21, 2021

Hey everyone. Just a kind ping here.

Due to update in READMEs, the voting on the packages have been prolonged to Tuesday so we have two more days for testing.

Thanks to @dejii @TAKEDA-Takashi @flolas @levyitay @codenamestif @amatellanes @nlecoy @jmelot @Goodkat @zhzhang for testing their changes (you rock!).

It would be great if we hear from others as well before the PMC gets to vote :). @MatthewRBruce @JavierLopezT @mmenarguezpear @monti-python @junnplus @codenamestif @gabrielsyapse @uranusjr @Dr-Denzy @jpyen @jacobhjkim @olivermeyer @zachliu @thejens @p-kachalov
@sunki-hong @sjvanrossum @subkanthi @avocadomaster @jlaneve @sunkickr @malthe @yesemsanthoshkumar @natanweinberger @jedcunningham @Visya @andrewgodwin
@dimberman @msumit @grassten @pgillet @tianjianjiang @dstandish @Isaacwhyuenac @sfc-gh-madkins @ngaranko @ashb @tegardp

@Isaacwhyuenac
Copy link
Contributor

Tested #15609. It works fine

@MatthewRBruce
Copy link
Contributor

Tested #15490 - Fix unsuccessful KubernetesPod final_state call when is_delete_operator_pod=True. Works as expected.

@olivermeyer
Copy link
Contributor

#16327 works as expected.

@monti-python
Copy link
Contributor

#15637 works as expected as well

@natanweinberger
Copy link
Contributor

natanweinberger commented Jun 21, 2021

#15730 is just a whitespace linting fix 👍

However, #15728 and #15667 touched the same file around the same time (also for minor changes) and aren't listed here, should they be included?

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 21, 2021

However, #15728 and #15667 touched the same file around the same time (also for minor changes) and aren't listed here, should they be included?

Auto-apply is specifically excluded as it was a change that applied to all providers (and main reason for this backwards-incompatible release) but it has been tested before. The other one is a docstring only (and those are excluded from changelog/testing).

@jedcunningham
Copy link
Member

Tested elasticsearch 2.0.1rc1 (note: rc1, not 2 as linked in the description), looks good. Do note that some of the fixes/features only work with core changes coming in 2.1.1, but the new provider does still work with earlier 2.x versions.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 21, 2021

Tested elasticsearch 2.0.1rc1 (note: rc1, not 2 as linked in the description), looks good. Do note that some of the fixes/features only work with core changes coming in 2.1.1, but the new provider does still work with earlier 2.x versions.

Thanks @jedcunningham ! corrected the link to keep good track of it.

@tianjianjiang
Copy link
Contributor

tianjianjiang commented Jun 22, 2021

@potiuk I've tried to allocate some resource for testing #15026 but unfortunately not happening soon enough. However, at least the situation I've experienced before is coded in https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/15026/files#diff-ba677556962f02c90a0e6933525d9d3f795e2d44a3d2229de1db9d1b68a067eb and since the datetime-related change is abstract while its upstream has only one change set of docstring lint (#15730), it is highly likely #15026 will work.

@JavierLopezT
Copy link
Contributor

JavierLopezT commented Jun 22, 2021

Hello. Regarding #13796, I did make a quick test before merging the PR (the file was there and was not empty) but I can't make a deeper test due to health reasons. I am sorry

@ngaranko
Copy link
Contributor

#14701 works as expected.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jun 22, 2021

Hello. Regarding #13796, I did make a quick test before merging the PR (the file was there and was not empty) but I can't make a deeper test due to health reasons. I am sorry

No worries! thanks for your contributions so far @JavierLopezT !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests