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
