I think you have not updated to latest version of svn (or maybe your extracted "asf" dir contains the version that was prepared for rc1 (not even rc2) - because it does not contain the changes merged 5 days ago via this PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/43076
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:18 PM Jens Scheffler <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid> wrote: > Hi @Jarek, @Elad, > > okay, in my re-producibility checks I see more than just meta data > changes - I re-re-produced the packages and still the diff is the same: > > > (airflow) jscheffl@hp860g9:~/temp/__airflow/2$ diff -r asf local > diff -r > > asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py > > local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/fab_auth_manager.py > 21d20 > < import warnings > 50c49 > < from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException, > AirflowException, AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning > --- > > from airflow.exceptions import AirflowConfigException, AirflowException > 274,283d272 > < > < def is_authorized_dataset( > < self, *, method: ResourceMethod, details: AssetDetails | None > = None, user: BaseUser | None = None > < ) -> bool: > < warnings.warn( > < "is_authorized_dataset will be renamed as > is_authorized_asset in Airflow 3 and will be removed when the minimum > Airflow version is set to 3.0 for the fab provider", > < AirflowProviderDeprecationWarning, > < stacklevel=2, > < ) > < return self.is_authorized_asset(method=method, user=user) > diff -r > > asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py > > local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/auth_manager/security_manager/override.py > 20d19 > < import copy > 28c27 > < from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection, > Container, Iterable, Mapping, Sequence > --- > > from typing import TYPE_CHECKING, Any, Callable, Collection, > Container, Iterable, Sequence > 1111c1110 > < access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] | > Collection[str]] | None = None, > --- > > access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] | > Collection[str]] | None = None, > 1132c1131 > < self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id, > copy.copy(access_control)) > --- > > self._sync_dag_view_permissions(dag_id, > access_control.copy()) > 1153c1152 > < access_control: Mapping[str, Mapping[str, Collection[str]] | > Collection[str]], > --- > > access_control: dict[str, dict[str, Collection[str]] | > Collection[str]], > diff -r > > asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py > > local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/airflow/providers/fab/migrations/env.py > 20d19 > < from logging import getLogger > 36c35 > < if not getLogger().handlers and config.config_file_name: > --- > > if config.config_file_name is not None: > diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO > local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/PKG-INFO > 1c1 > < Metadata-Version: 2.1 > --- > > Metadata-Version: 2.3 > 30c30 > < Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra == > "common.compat" > --- > > Requires-Dist: apache-airflow-providers-common-compat ; extra == > "common-compat" > 39c39 > < Provides-Extra: common.compat > --- > > Provides-Extra: common-compat > diff -r asf/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml > local/apache_airflow_providers_fab-1.5.0/pyproject.toml > 26c26 > < requires = ["flit_core==3.10.0"] > --- > > requires = ["flit_core >=3.2,<4"] > > > > On 04.11.24 20:48, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Those are the diffs I see (look like meta-data) only: > > https://ibb.co/xgjDYVR > > > > And it's clear that flit 3.9.0 was used - not the pinned 3.10.0 to > generate > > the package. It somehow looks like rc2 was not replaced with rc3 > generated > > with the new tag. > > Do you see other differences Jens (BTW. `diffoscope` is a fantastic tool > > for comparing packages etc) - I have not checked other packages - only > the > > FAB ones, maybe there are other differences. > > > > J. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote: > > > >> +1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences. > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler > <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff > is > >>> in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab > >>> provider. So I am not toally conviced. > >>> > >>> So my test results are: > >>> > >>> +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures > >>> > >>> Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and > amazon > >>> > >>> On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > >>>> I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been > >> handled > >>> by > >>>> pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might > >> need > >>> a > >>>> bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and > >>>> the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility > >>> check > >>>> does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum, > >>> signatures > >>>> work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release. > >>>> The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some > cases > >>> as > >>>> noted by Pavan in > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628 > >>> - it > >>>> will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since > >> this > >>>> one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc. > >>>> > >>>> So: > >>>> > >>>> +1 for FAB provider > >>>> -1 for amazon provider. > >>>> > >>>> We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to > >>>> address the reproducibility issue, though. > >>>> > >>>> J. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Wei > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until > >> 3 > >>>>>> binding +1 votes have been received. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hey all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is > >> calling > >>> a > >>>>>>> vote on the release, > >>>>>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on > >>> November > >>>>>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been > >> received. > >>>>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Airflow Providers are available at: > >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary > >>>>>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the > >>>>>>> provider packages. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary > >>>>>>> Python "wheel" release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members > >>>>>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this > >> RC > >>>>> is > >>>>>>> described in: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors > >>>>>>> Public keys are available at: > >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please vote accordingly: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve > >>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > >>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the > >> community > >>>>> are > >>>>>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string. > >>>>>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying > >>>>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here: > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in > >> the > >>>>> RC > >>>>>>> candidates. > >>>>>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the > >>>>>>> documentation after the > >>>>>>> RC candidates are released. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/ > >>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Elad Kalif > >>>>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >
