Looks good but I think we should find some better logical name for core_and_sdk :)
pon., 7 lip 2025, 21:44 użytkownik Jens Scheffler <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid> napisał: > Cool! Especially the "shared" folder with the ability to have > N-combinations w/o exploding project repo root! > > On 07.07.25 14:43, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > > Oh, and all of this will be explain in shared/README.md > > > >> On 7 Jul 2025, at 13:41, Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Okay, so it seems we have agreement on the approach here, so I’ll > continue with this, and on the dev call it was mentioned that > “airflow-common” wasn’t a great name, so here is my proposal for the file > structure; > >> > >> ``` > >> / > >> task-sdk/... > >> airflow-core/... > >> shared/ > >> kuberenetes/ > >> pyproject.toml > >> src/ > >> airflow_kube/__init__.py > >> core-and-tasksdk/ > >> pyproject.toml > >> src/ > >> airflow_shared/__init__.py > >> ``` > >> > >> Things to note here: the “shared” folder has (the possibility) of > having multiple different shared “libraries” in it, in this example I am > supposing a hypothetical shared kuberenetes folder a world in which we > split the KubePodOperator and the KubeExecutor in to two separate > distributions (example only, not proposing we do that right now, and that > will be a separate discussion) > >> > >> The other things to note here: > >> > >> > >> - the folder name in shared aims to be “self-documenting”, hence the > verbose “core-and-tasksdk” to say where the shared library is intended to > be used. > >> - the python module itself should almost always have an `airflow_` (or > maybe `_airflow_`?) prefix so that it does not conflict with anything else > we might use. It won’t matter “in production” as those will be vendored in > to be imported as `airflow/_vendor/airflow_shared` etc, but avoiding > conflicts at dev time with the Finder approach is a good safety measure. > >> > >> I will start making a real PR for this proposal now, but I’m open to > feedback (either here, or in the PR when I open it) > >> > >> -ash > >> > >>> On 4 Jul 2025, at 16:55, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Yeah we have to try it and test - also building packages happens semi > >>> frequently when you run `uv sync` (they use some kind of heuristics to > >>> decide when) and you can force it with `--reinstall` or `--refresh`. > >>> Package build also happens every time when you run "ci-image build` > now in > >>> breeze so it seems like it will nicely integrate in our workflows. > >>> > >>> Looks really cool Ash. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 5:14 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> It’s not just release time, but any time we build a package which > happens > >>>> on “every” CI run. The normal unit tests will use code from > >>>> airflow-common/src/airflow_common; the kube tests which build an > image will > >>>> build the dists and vendor in the code from that commit. > >>>> > >>>> There is only a single copy of the shared code committed to the repo, > so > >>>> there is never anything to synchronise. > >>>> > >>>>> On 4 Jul 2025, at 15:53, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Ash. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is really cool and helpful that you were able to test both > scenarios > >>>>> -- repo checkout > >>>>> and also installing from the vendored package and the resolution > worked > >>>>> fine too. > >>>>> > >>>>> I like this idea compared the to relative import one for few reasons: > >>>>> - It feels like it will take some time to adjust to the new coding > >>>> standard > >>>>> that we will lay > >>>>> if we impose relative imports in the shared dist > >>>>> - We can continue using repo wise absolute import standards, it is > also > >>>>> much easier for situations > >>>>> when we do global search in IDE to find + replace, this could mean a > >>>> change > >>>>> there > >>>>> - The vendoring work is a proven and established paradigm across > projects > >>>>> and would > >>>>> out of box give us the build tooling we need also > >>>>> > >>>>> Nothing too against the relative import but with the evidence > provided > >>>>> above, vendored approach > >>>>> seems to only do us good. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding synchronizing it, release time should be fine as long as we > >>>> have > >>>>> a good CI workflow to probably > >>>>> catch such issues per PR if changes are made in shared dist? > (precommit > >>>>> would make it really slow i guess) > >>>>> > >>>>> If we can run our tests with vendored code we should be mostly > covered. > >>>>> > >>>>> Good effort all! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks & Regards, > >>>>> Amogh Desai > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:23 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Okay, I think I’ve got something that works and I’m happy with. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/astronomer/airflow/tree/shared-vendored-lib-tasksdk-and-core > >>>>>> This produces the following from `uv build task-sdk` > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21058976/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0.tar.gz > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/user-attachments/files/21058996/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.zip > >>>>>> (`.whl.zip` as GH won't allow .whl upload, but will .zip) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> ❯ unzip -l dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.zip | > >>>> grep > >>>>>> _vendor > >>>>>> 50 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/.gitignore > >>>>>> 2082 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py > >>>>>> 28 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common.pyi > >>>>>> 18 02-02-2020 00:00 airflow/sdk/_vendor/vendor.txt > >>>>>> 785 02-02-2020 00:00 > >>>>>> airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/__init__.py > >>>>>> 10628 02-02-2020 00:00 > >>>>>> airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And similarly in the .tar.gz, so our “sdist” is complete too: > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> ❯ tar -tzf dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0.tar.gz |grep _vendor > >>>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/.gitignore > >>>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py > >>>>>> > apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common.pyi > >>>>>> apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/vendor.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/__init__.py > >>>>>> > >>>> > apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The plugin works at build time by including/copying the libs > specified > >>>> in > >>>>>> vendor.txt into place (and let `vendoring` take care of import > >>>> rewrites.) > >>>>>> For the imports to continue to work at “dev” time/from a repo > checkout, > >>>> I > >>>>>> have added a import finder to `sys.meta_path`, and since it’s at the > >>>> end of > >>>>>> the list it will only be used if the normal import can’t find > things. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/astronomer/airflow/blob/996817782be6071b306a87af9f36fe1cf2d3aaa3/task-sdk/src/airflow/sdk/_vendor/__init__.py > >>>>>> This doesn’t quite give us the same runtime effect “import > rewriting” > >>>>>> affect, as in this approach `airflow_common` is directly loaded > (i.e. > >>>>>> airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common and airflow_common exist in > >>>>>> sys.modules), but it does work for everything that I was able to > test.. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I tested it with the diff at the end of this message. My test > ipython > >>>>>> shell: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> In [1]: from airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone import foo > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In [2]: foo > >>>>>> Out[2]: 1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In [3]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In [4]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In [5]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.__file__ > >>>>>> Out[5]: > >>>>>> > >>>> > '/Users/ash/code/airflow/airflow/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py' > >>>>>> In [6]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone.__file__ > >>>>>> Out[6]: > >>>>>> > >>>> > '/Users/ash/code/airflow/airflow/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py' > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And in an standalone environment with the SDK dist I built (it > needed > >>>> the > >>>>>> matching airflow-core right now, but that is nothing to do with this > >>>>>> discussion): > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> ❯ _AIRFLOW__AS_LIBRARY=1 uvx --python 3.12 --with > >>>>>> dist/apache_airflow_core-3.1.0-py3-none-any.whl --with > >>>>>> dist/apache_airflow_task_sdk-1.1.0-py3-none-any.whl ipython > >>>>>> Python 3.12.7 (main, Oct 16 2024, 07:12:08) [Clang 18.1.8 ] > >>>>>> Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information > >>>>>> IPython 9.4.0 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help. > >>>>>> Tip: You can use `%hist` to view history, see the options with > >>>> `%history?` > >>>>>> In [1]: import airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In [2]: airflow.sdk._vendor.airflow_common.timezone.__file__ > >>>>>> Out[2]: > >>>>>> > >>>> > '/Users/ash/.cache/uv/archive-v0/WWq6r65aPto2eJOyPObEH/lib/python3.12/site-packages/airflow/sdk/_vendor/airflow_common/timezone.py’ > >>>>>> `` > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ```diff > >>>>>> diff --git a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py > >>>>>> b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py > >>>>>> index 13a83393a9..927b7c6b61 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py > >>>>>> +++ b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/__init__.py > >>>>>> @@ -14,3 +14,5 @@ > >>>>>> # KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the > >>>>>> # specific language governing permissions and limitations > >>>>>> # under the License. > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +foo = 1 > >>>>>> diff --git a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py > >>>>>> b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py > >>>>>> index 340b924c66..58384ef20f 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py > >>>>>> +++ b/airflow-common/src/airflow_common/timezone.py > >>>>>> @@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ _PENDULUM3 = > >>>>>> version.parse(metadata.version("pendulum")).major == 3 > >>>>>> # - FixedTimezone(0, "UTC") in pendulum 2 > >>>>>> utc = pendulum.UTC > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +from airflow_common import foo > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> TIMEZONE: Timezone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ``` > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 3 Jul 2025, at 12:43, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> I think both approaches are doable: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) -> We can very easily prevent bad imports by pre-commit when > >>>> importing > >>>>>>> from different distributions and make sure we are only doing > relative > >>>>>>> imports in the shared modules. We are doing plenty of this > already. And > >>>>>> yes > >>>>>>> it would require relative links we currently do not allow. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) -> has one disadvantage that someone at some point in time will > have > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>> decide to synchronize this and if it happens just before release > (I bet > >>>>>>> this is going to happen) this will lead to solving problems that > would > >>>>>>> normally be solved during PR when you make a change (i.e. symbolic > link > >>>>>> has > >>>>>>> the advantage that whoever modifies shared code will be immediately > >>>>>>> notified in their PR - that they broke something because either > static > >>>>>>> checks or mypy or tests fail. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ash, do you have an idea of a process (who and when) does the > >>>>>>> synchronisation in case of vendoring? Maybe we could solve it if > it is > >>>>>> done > >>>>>>> more frequently and with some regularity? We could potentially > force > >>>>>>> re-vendoring at PR time as well any time shared code changes (and > >>>> prevent > >>>>>>> it by pre-commit. And I can't think of some place (other than > releases) > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>> our development workflow and that seems to be a bit too late as > puts an > >>>>>>> extra effort on fixing potential incompatibilities introduced on > >>>> release > >>>>>>> manager and delays the release. WDYT? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Re: relative links. I think for a shared library we could > potentially > >>>>>> relax > >>>>>>> this and allow them (and actually disallow absolute links in the > pieces > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> code that are shared - again, by pre-commit). As I recall, the only > >>>>>> reason > >>>>>>> we forbade the relative links is because of how we are (or maybe > were) > >>>>>>> doing DAG parsing and failures resulting from it. So we decided to > just > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>> allow it to keep consistency. The way how Dag parsing works is that > >>>> when > >>>>>>> you are using importlib to read the Dag from a file, the relative > >>>> imports > >>>>>>> do not work as it does not know what they should be relative to. > But if > >>>>>>> relative import is done from an imported package, it should be no > >>>>>> problem, > >>>>>>> I think - otherwise our Dags would not be able to import any > library > >>>> that > >>>>>>> uses relative imports. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course consistency might be the reason why we do not want to > >>>> introduce > >>>>>>> relative imports. I don't see it as an issue if it is guarded by > >>>>>> pre-commit > >>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> czw., 3 lip 2025, 12:11 użytkownik Ash Berlin-Taylor < > a...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> napisał: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Oh yes, symlinks will work, with one big caveat: It does mean you > >>>> can’t > >>>>>>>> use absolute imports in one common module to another. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For example > >>>>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/4c66ebd06/airflow-core/src/airflow/utils/serve_logs.py#L41 > >>>>>>>> where we have > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>> from airflow.utils.module_loading import import_string > >>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> if we want to move serve_logs into this common lib that is then > >>>>>> symlinked > >>>>>>>> then we wouldn’t be able to have `from > airflow_common.module_loading > >>>>>> import > >>>>>>>> import_string`. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I can think of two possible solutions here. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) is to allow/require relative imports in this shared lib, so > `from > >>>>>>>> .module_loading import import_string` > >>>>>>>> 2) is to use `vendoring`[1] (from the pip maintainers) which will > >>>> handle > >>>>>>>> import-rewriting for us. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I’d entirely forgot that symlinks in repos was a thing, so I > prepared > >>>> a > >>>>>>>> minimal POC/demo of what vendoring approach could look like here > >>>>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/996817782be6071b306a87af9f36fe1cf2d3aaa3 > >>>>>>>> Now personally I am more than happy with relative imports, but > >>>> generally > >>>>>>>> as a project we have avoided them, so I think that limits what we > >>>> could > >>>>>> do > >>>>>>>> with a symlink based approach. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -ash > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pradyunsg/vendoring > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 3 Jul 2025, at 10:30, Pavankumar Gopidesu < > >>>> gopidesupa...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Ash > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes agree option 2 would be preferred for me. Making sure we > have all > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> gaurdriles to protect any unwanted behaviour in code sharing and > >>>>>>>> executing > >>>>>>>>> right of tests between the packages. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Agree with others, option 2 would be > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:02 AM Amogh Desai < > >>>> amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Ash. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would prefer option 2 here with proper tooling to handle the > code > >>>>>>>>>> duplication at *release* time. > >>>>>>>>>> It is best to have a dist that has all it needs in itself. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Option 1 could very quickly get out of hand and if we decide to > >>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>>>> triggerer / > >>>>>>>>>> dag processor / config etc etc as separate packages, back > compat is > >>>>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>>> to be a nightmare > >>>>>>>>>> and will bite us harder than we anticipate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, > >>>>>>>>>> Amogh Desai > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:12 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I prefer Option 2 as well to avoid matrix of dependencies > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 at 01:03, Jens Scheffler > >>>>>> <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also rather prefer option 2 - reason here is it is rather > >>>>>>>> pragmatic > >>>>>>>>>>>> and we no not need to cut another package and have less > package > >>>>>> counts > >>>>>>>>>>>> and dependencies. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I remember some time ago I was checking (together with Jarek, > I am > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>> sure anymore...) if the usage of symlinks would be possible. > To > >>>> keep > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> source in one package but "symlink" it into another. If then > at > >>>>>> point > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>> packaging/release the files are materialized we have 1 set of > >>>> code. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise if not possible still the redundancy could be > solved by > >>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>> pre-commit hook - and in Git the files are de-duplicated > anyway > >>>>>> based > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>> content hash, so this does not hurt. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.07.25 18:49, Shahar Epstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I support option 2 with proper automation & CI - the > reasonings > >>>>>>>>>> you've > >>>>>>>>>>>>> shown for that make sense to me. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shahar > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:36 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > a...@apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we work on finishing off the code-level separation of > Task > >>>> SDK > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> Core > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (scheduler etc) we have come across some situations where we > >>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> share code between these. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it’s not as straight forward of “just put it in a > common > >>>>>>>>>> dist > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both depend upon” because one of the goals of the Task SDK > >>>>>>>>>> separation > >>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have 100% complete version independence between the two, > >>>>>> ideally > >>>>>>>>>>>> even if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are built into the same image and venv. Most of the > reason > >>>>>> why > >>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn’t straight forward comes down to backwards > compatibility - > >>>> if > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an change to the common/shared distribution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’ve listed the options we have thought about in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/51545 (but that > covers > >>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that I don’t want to get in to in this discussion > such as > >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separating operators and executors out of a single provider > >>>> dist.) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To give a concrete example of some code I would like to > share > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/84897570bf7e438afb157ba4700768ea74824295/airflow-core/src/airflow/_logging/structlog.py > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> — logging config. Another thing we will want to share will > be > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AirflowConfigParser class from airflow.configuration (but > >>>> notably: > >>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parser class, _not_ the default config values, again, lets > not > >>>>>> dwell > >>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifics of that) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So to bring the options listed in the issue here for > discussion, > >>>>>>>>>>> broadly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking there are two high-level approaches: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. A single shared distribution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No shared package and copy/duplicate code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The advantage of Approach 1 is that we only have the code > in one > >>>>>>>>>>> place. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However for me, at least in this specific case of Logging > config > >>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AirflowConfigParser class is that backwards compatibility is > >>>> much > >>>>>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harder. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main advantage of Approach 2 is the the code is released > >>>>>>>>>>>> with/embedded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the dist (i.e. apache-airflow-task-sdk would contain the > >>>> right > >>>>>>>>>>>> version > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the logging config and ConfigParser etc). The downside is > >>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code will need to be duplicated in the repo, or better > yet > >>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> live in a single place in the repo, but some tooling (TBD) > will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically handle the duplication, either at commit > time, or > >>>> my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference, at release time. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this kind of shared “utility” code I am very strongly > >>>> leaning > >>>>>>>>>>>> towards > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option 2 with automation, as otherwise I think the backwards > >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements would make it unworkable (very quickly over > time > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations we would have to test would just be > unreasonable) > >>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>>>>>> don’t > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel confident we can have things as stable as we need to > really > >>>>>>>>>>> deliver > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the version separation/independency I want to delivery with > >>>>>> AIP-72. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So unless someone feels very strongly about this, I will > come up > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft PR for further discussion that will implement code > sharing > >>>>>> via > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “vendoring” it at build time. I have an idea of how I can > >>>> achieve > >>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have a single version in the repo and it’ll work there, > but > >>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>> runtime > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we vendor it in to the shipped dist so it lives at something > >>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> `airflow.sdk._vendor` etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of repo layout, this likely means we would end up > with: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/pyproject.toml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/src/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-core/tests/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/pyproject.toml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/src/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> task-sdk/tests/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-common/src > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-common/tests/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> # Possibly no airflow-common/pyproject.toml, as deps would > be > >>>>>>>>>> included > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the downstream projects. TBD. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts and feedback welcomed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
