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 March 07, 2022 #22063

Closed
41 of 84 tasks
potiuk opened this issue Mar 7, 2022 · 41 comments
Closed
41 of 84 tasks

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on March 07, 2022 #22063

potiuk opened this issue Mar 7, 2022 · 41 comments
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases

Comments

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Mar 7, 2022

Body

I have a kind request for all the contributors to the latest provider packages release.
Could you please help us to test the RC versions of the providers?

Let us know in the comment, whether the issue is addressed.

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

Provider amazon: 3.1.0rc1

Provider apache.beam: 3.2.0rc1

Provider apache.hdfs: 2.2.1rc1

Provider apache.hive: 2.3.0rc1

Provider apache.livy: 2.2.0rc1

Provider apache.spark: 2.1.1rc1

Provider cncf.kubernetes: 3.1.0rc1

Provider databricks: 2.3.0rc1

Provider docker: 2.5.0rc1

Provider elasticsearch: 3.0.0rc1

Provider ftp: 2.1.0rc1

Provider google: 6.5.0rc1

Provider hashicorp: 2.1.2rc1

Provider http: 2.1.0rc1

Provider microsoft.azure: 3.7.0rc1

Provider mysql: 2.2.1rc1

Provider oracle: 2.2.1rc1

Provider postgres: 4.0.0rc1

Provider presto: 2.1.0rc1

Provider sftp: 2.5.0rc1

Provider trino: 2.1.0rc1

Provider zendesk: 3.0.1rc1

Committer

  • I acknowledge that I am a maintainer/committer of the Apache Airflow project.
@potiuk potiuk added the kind:meta High-level information important to the community label Mar 7, 2022
@vinooganesh
Copy link
Contributor

#21434 looks good (docs change)

@kazanzhy
Copy link
Contributor

kazanzhy commented Mar 7, 2022

#21307 - tested before PR
#20119 - seems OK
#20244 - OK

#20642 - tested
#20907 - tested
#21231 - tested
Fix PR #22125

Screenshot 2022-03-09 at 18 25 12

@treyyi
Copy link
Contributor

treyyi commented Mar 8, 2022

#21988 Looks good (hook name change)

@zhongjiajie
Copy link
Member

#21422 Looking good, and it just docs change BTW

@alexott
Copy link
Contributor

alexott commented Mar 8, 2022

Checked #21363 from the main branch, works.
#21494 looks good.

The rest for Databricks operator are also looks good from the source code perspective

@hsrocks
Copy link
Contributor

hsrocks commented Mar 8, 2022

#21673 Tested it. Worked fine

@h2cone
Copy link
Contributor

h2cone commented Mar 8, 2022

#21831 Tested it, LGTM.

@akifcakir
Copy link
Contributor

#21709 tested it , works fine.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 8, 2022

Thanks for the tests so far :) .

FYI. For those who struggle on how to test, here is a helpful guideline:

https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-by-contributors

UPDATE: Actually the docs were a bit outdated. Better instructions here:


Installing in your local virtualenv

You have to make sure you have Airflow 2* installed in your PIP virtualenv
(the version you want to install providers with).

pip install apache-airflow-providers-<provider>==<VERSION>rc<X>

Installing with Breeze

./breeze start-airflow --use-airflow-version 2.2.4 --python 3.7 --backend postgres \
    --load-example-dags --load-default-connections

After you are in Breeze:

pip install apache-airflow-providers-<provider>==<VERSION>rc<X>

NOTE! You should Ctrl-C and restart the connections to restart airflow components and make sure new
provider packages is used.


I will add it to the issue template for next wave :)

@frankcash
Copy link
Contributor

Confirmed #21997 via the UI utility and running a task that calls .test_connection() for both FTP and SFTP hooks

@schirag1993
Copy link
Contributor

Tested #21686 - works as expected

@vincbeck
Copy link
Contributor

vincbeck commented Mar 8, 2022

#21976 LGTM. Only docs change

@vincbeck
Copy link
Contributor

vincbeck commented Mar 8, 2022

#21975 is good too. Docs change only

@alexchen8
Copy link
Contributor

alexchen8 commented Mar 8, 2022

#21778 looks good on implementation side.
Found a small typo in doc, will submit a PR.
Thanks!

@vincbeck
Copy link
Contributor

vincbeck commented Mar 8, 2022

#19137 Found out some bugs while testing it. Will submit a PR soon

@alekseiloginov
Copy link
Contributor

#20882 looks good, thanks!

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 8, 2022

#19137 Found out some bugs while testing it. Will submit a PR soon

Regression or some new stuff added has errors @vincbeck ?

@vincbeck
Copy link
Contributor

vincbeck commented Mar 8, 2022

#19137 Found out some bugs while testing it. Will submit a PR soon

Regression or some new stuff added has errors @vincbeck ?

New stuff

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 8, 2022

New stuff

Cool. Does not block AWS provider from releasing :) . We can release a new version right after.

@kanga333
Copy link
Contributor

kanga333 commented Mar 9, 2022

I tested #21574. It worked fine. LGTM!

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 9, 2022

Cool. We have one more day and we are doing good with the new Providers. This one is great as will let us move to Python 3.10 finally :)

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor

eladkal commented Mar 9, 2022

@potiuk if we still can #21788 should be skipped from change log. Its a change that doesn't require testing
I guess the skip log label isn't used for providers?

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 9, 2022

@potiuk if we still can #21788 should be skipped from change log. Its a change that doesn't require testing I guess the skip log label isn't used for providers?

Nope. It's not (and we might add it though I think with the coming towncrier changes we might not want to invest in it).

We can always remove the changelog entry from the docs (but not from the package README),

@zachliu
Copy link
Contributor

zachliu commented Mar 9, 2022

i tested #22002. good news: the retry did kick in 🚀
however, i'd like to add reraise: True in the default_kwargs here

default_kwargs = {
'wait': tenacity.wait_exponential(multiplier=multiplier, max=max_limit, min=min_limit),
'retry': tenacity.retry_if_exception(should_retry),
'stop': tenacity.stop_after_delay(stop_after_delay),
'before': tenacity_logger,
'after': tenacity_logger,
}

otherwise we get a very vague exception when we exhaust all retries

tenacity.RetryError: RetryError[<Future at 0x7f143d69a9a0 state=finished raised Exception>]

i changed my mind, keeping reraise=False by default is fine 😅

@eskarimov
Copy link
Contributor

Tested functionality introduced with #21663, works as expected.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 9, 2022

@kazanzhy the #22125 is also "new" stuff fix right ? If so, we will release this RC tomorrow and i will run next Amazon provider release right after

@josh-fell
Copy link
Contributor

josh-fell commented Mar 9, 2022

#21525, #21237, #21403. and #21411 look good!

#21924 unfortunately won't work until #21330 is released (presumably in Airflow 2.3).

I should be able to get to testing #20510 later today.

@potiuk It's not part of this issue but when testing the new dbt Cloud provider a couple parameters in an operator don't work quite as intended, but there is a workaround to get the same functionality with existing operator as written though. I can work on getting a fix in tonight but I was wondering if it would be possible to release an rc2 for dbt Cloud? Even though there is a workaround, it would be nice to have v1.0.0 work as expected out of the gate. WDYT?

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 9, 2022

@potiuk It's not part of this issue but when testing the new dbt Cloud provider a couple parameters in an operator don't work quite as intended, but there is a workaround to get the same functionality with existing operator as written though. I can work on getting a fix in tonight but I was wondering if it would be possible to release an rc2 for dbt Cloud? Even though there is a workaround, it would be nice to have v1.0.0 work as expected out of the gate. WDYT?

Sure. I can remove dbt from the list easily.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 9, 2022

#21924 unfortunately won't work until #21330 is released (presumably in Airflow 2.3).

Too bad. Not critical though.

@shahkshitij15
Copy link
Contributor

shahkshitij15 commented Mar 9, 2022

#21944 LGTM, tested it!

@josh-fell
Copy link
Contributor

@potiuk It's not part of this issue but when testing the new dbt Cloud provider a couple parameters in an operator don't work quite as intended, but there is a workaround to get the same functionality with existing operator as written though. I can work on getting a fix in tonight but I was wondering if it would be possible to release an rc2 for dbt Cloud? Even though there is a workaround, it would be nice to have v1.0.0 work as expected out of the gate. WDYT?

Sure. I can remove dbt from the list easily.

Thanks @potiuk!

@kazanzhy
Copy link
Contributor

kazanzhy commented Mar 9, 2022

@potiuk
Yes. #22125 fixes this new RDS functionality that is not covered by moto tests.

@zachliu
Copy link
Contributor

zachliu commented Mar 10, 2022

@potiuk oh 💩 there is a bug 😅 in #22002
fix coming right up...#22137

@josh-fell
Copy link
Contributor

#20510 looks good too. Thanks for organizing the release as usual @potiuk

@lwyszomi
Copy link
Contributor

#21756 #21639 #21518 and #21267 look good

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 10, 2022

@potiuk oh there is a bug in #22002

Right. Seems like Amazon accumulated enough fixes to skip it from the release and run RC2 :)

@Bowrna
Copy link
Contributor

Bowrna commented Mar 10, 2022

#21986 looks good, documentation changes only :)

@alexott
Copy link
Contributor

alexott commented Mar 10, 2022

if we'll do second set of releases, then it would be nice to get another release for databricks provider - to include #22076

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 10, 2022

if we'll do second set of releases, then it would be nice to get another release for databricks provider - to include #22076

I think unless we find some problems, I prefer to release only those that we have to as RC2. I think this is not very far for the next month release :).

@jedcunningham
Copy link
Member

Checked and the change from #21826 is in the release.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Mar 10, 2022

Thanks everyone! I will proceed with releasing those and will release amazon/dbt RC2 shortly.

@potiuk potiuk closed this as completed Mar 10, 2022
@potiuk potiuk added the testing status Status of testing releases label Mar 28, 2022
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