> In terms of installation, are we looking at `uv tool install prefligit` or are we looking to do binary installation?
I think it does not matter - it just will need to be installed - but in our docs I think we should recommend `uv tool` as we anyhow require uv and then it's easy to manage all installed tools `uv tool upgrade --all` for example. > keep`breeze static-checks` as a thin wrapper around the new prefligit commands. The problem with that (as soon as autocomplete is merged for prefligit) is that we would have to somehow keep the autocomplete of breeze in sync with it, which I would like to avoid (I prefer to remove all the code handling it if possible :)). The nice thing with prefligit autocomplete is that it is fast and nice (once merged) - see example here: https://github.com/j178/prefligit/pull/380#issuecomment-3163508993 and trying to get this in breeze will require to leave all the code we use now to generate the list and use it for breeze's autocomplete (and it's generally visibly slower due to python/click limitations - not bad, but that's about few 100 lines of code we could remove if we switch everyone to use prefligit. But if others would like to keep the "static-checks" command - I am also fine with it. What do others think? J. On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 7:54 AM Amogh Desai <amoghde...@apache.org> wrote: > I am really excited for this one and kept reading it as "preflight" until > pointed out. > > The fact that it is 10x faster + built in `uv` support + separate > pre-commit per directory > (upcoming) is really cool! > > In terms of installation, are we looking at `uv tool install prefligit` or > are we looking to > do binary installation? Would prefer the latter. Regardless, it would be > great to keep > `breeze static-checks` as a thin wrapper around the new prefligit commands. > That way, > contributors stay insulated from tooling details, and if we ever switch > tools the wrapper > can remain unchanged. > > All in all, this looks like a solid improvement and I’m looking forward to > using it. > > Thanks & Regards, > Amogh Desai > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 10:46 AM Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I do think the closeness of the name warrants making it obvious the > > difference in docs. I had a few moments of confusion myself. > > -- > > Regards, > > Aritra Basu > > > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2025, 9:02 am Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes. Initially I thought the same ("odd choice"). > > > > > > That's a good point and something that we will have to all learn :). I > > even > > > thought that we should maybe leave `breeze static-checks` as wrapper - > > only > > > because `prefligit` is not something that one would easily use. > However - > > > as most of us use autocomplete, this is something that is super easy to > > not > > > even think about (at least that's my experience after I tried it) > > > > > > I do not think we use > > > https://www.npmjs.com/package/@applitools/preflight-cli for anything > now > > > - > > > and it requires separate account settings in "applitools" - this is the > > > only "popular" preflight CLI I have found. > > > > > > Does it bother anyone that it's easy to mix the two? > > > > > > We could stress it in the docs that it's NOT `preflight` or we could > also > > > leave the breeze "static-checks" wrapper - just to handle that (but I > > think > > > it's not really necessary and we want to get rid of our custom > > > auto-complete code. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 1:04 AM Tzu-ping Chung <t...@astronomer.io.invalid > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I didn’t even realise the name is NOT preflight before you pointed it > > > out, > > > > Daniel… > > > > > > > > TP > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > On 8 Aug 2025, at 07:11, Daniel Standish > > > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I thought `prefligit` was a typo of `preflight` > > > > > > > > > > bit of an odd choice in name > > > > > > > > > > but, i guess it's probably not that bad of a choice to avoid > > collisions > > > > > with `preflight` > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:28 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Indeed! Jo is amazing :) > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 8:24 PM Damian Shaw < > > > > ds...@striketechnologies.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Already fixed and released! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>> From: Damian Shaw <ds...@striketechnologies.com> > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 12:28 PM > > > > >>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org > > > > >>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Upcoming pre-commit -> prefligit change > > > > >>> > > > > >>> FYI I found two small issues trying to use it as a drop-in > > > replacement > > > > >> for > > > > >>> my work environment: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://github.com/j178/prefligit/issues/387 > > > > >>> https://github.com/j178/prefligit/issues/388 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But my otherwise quite complicated .pre-commit-config.yaml (which > > > uses > > > > >>> anchors and aliases and remote and local environments) ran fine. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Damian > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>> From: Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 12:08 PM > > > > >>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Upcoming pre-commit -> prefligit change > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Definitely agree with both of you, will be trying this out myself > > as > > > > >> well. > > > > >>> Definitely looking forward to seeing alternatives in the space! > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Aritra Basu > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2025, 9:2 pm Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>> Pre-commit is great for its stability but is really failing in > > > terms > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>> innovation, the project itself does not allow any discussion of > > > using > > > > >>>> new standards. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Had my fair share of those discussions in the past and I quite > > > agree. > > > > >>>> There is huge difference between "stability" and > > > > >>> "stagnation/stubbornness". > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 5:39 PM Damian Shaw > > > > >>>> <ds...@striketechnologies.com> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> I just want to say I am very excited to see innovation in this > > > space! > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Pre-commit is great for its stability but is really failing in > > > terms > > > > >>>>> of innovation, the project itself does not allow any discussion > > of > > > > >>>>> using new standards. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I will be testing it out in my own environments and then > > promoting > > > > >>>>> it widely. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Damian > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>>> From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > > > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 10:01 AM > > > > >>>>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org > > > > >>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Upcoming pre-commit -> prefligit change > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Hello everyone, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Early warning about upcoming pre-commit/prefligit change...... > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Together with Ash and creator of the prefligit: > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/j178/prefligit - we are testing and helping > > to > > > > >>>>> close the gaps between prefligit and pre-commit (and later we > > hope > > > > >>>>> we will be able to improve our prefligit integrations with > > upcoming > > > > >>>>> monorepo support especially - which would help us to modularise > > our > > > > >>>>> pre-fligits (that's > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> name we will likely start using ;) .. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> It seems we are very close so I wanted to make a short > "upcoming > > > > >>> change" > > > > >>>>> note so that you are aware: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> * *breeze static-checks *will hopefully be gone and replaced by > > > > >>>>> `prefligit` command - the author of prefligit is > super-receptive > > to > > > > >>>> things > > > > >>>>> like `--last-commit` flags and autocomplete including our hook > > > names > > > > >>>>> - > > > > >>>> so I > > > > >>>>> think we will be able to remove the whole `static-check` > > machinery > > > > >>>>> from breeze that added what we needed > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> * *prefiligit* uses *uv* by default - no more `uv tool install > > > > >>>>> pre-commit --with pre-commit-uv` needed to enable it (again the > > > > >>>>> author of prefligit > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>> way more receptive to the needs of users and there will be no > > need > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>> patch > > > > >>>>> pre-commit to use `uv` (which effectively `--with > pre-commit-uv` > > > > >>>>> does) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> That's another step of simplifying our dev env setup where > > existing > > > > >>>>> tooling finally catches up with what we need and we can remove > > some > > > > >>>>> of > > > > >>>> our > > > > >>>>> custom > > > > >>>>> (breeze) code that does it (which makes me super happy). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> More about it soon, when we get a new release of prefligit that > > > will > > > > >>>> solve > > > > >>>>> all the remaining (small) issues and have auto-complete merged > > > > >>>> (contributed > > > > >>>>> by someone based on our issue > > > > >>>> https://github.com/j178/prefligit/pull/380 > > > > >>>>> :). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> If there are any concerns or doubts - feel free to raise them > :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> J. > > > > >>>>> ________________________________ > > > > >>>>> Strike Technologies, LLC (“Strike”) is part of the GTS family > of > > > > >>>>> companies. Strike is a technology solutions provider, and is > not > > a > > > > >>>>> broker or dealer and does not transact any securities related > > > > >>>>> business directly whatsoever. This communication is the > property > > of > > > > >>>>> Strike and its affiliates, and does not constitute an offer to > > sell > > > > >>>>> or the solicitation > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>>> an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. It is > intended > > > > >>>>> only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain > > > > >>>>> information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise > > > protected > > > > >>> from disclosure. > > > > >>>>> Distribution or copying of this communication, or the > information > > > > >>>> contained > > > > >>>>> herein, by anyone other than the intended recipient is > > prohibited. > > > > >>>>> If you have received this communication in error, please > > > immediately > > > > >>>>> notify > > > > >>>> Strike > > > > >>>>> at i...@striketechnologies.com, and delete and destroy any > > copies > > > > >>>> hereof. > > > > >>>>> ________________________________ > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY / PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any > > > > >>>>> attachments are intended solely for the addressee. This > > > transmission > > > > >>>>> is covered by > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C ''2510-2521. > The > > > > >>>>> information contained in this transmission is confidential in > > > nature > > > > >>>>> and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. > > > > >>>>> 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to > > > > >>>>> attorney-client or other legal privilege. Your use or > disclosure > > of > > > > >>>>> this information for any > > > > >>>> purpose > > > > >>>>> other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly > > prohibited, > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>> may > > > > >>>>> subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state > > law. > > > > >>>>> If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, > > please > > > > >>>>> DESTROY ALL COPIES RECEIVED and confirm destruction to the > sender > > > > >>>>> via return transmittal. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> ________________________________ > > > > >>> Strike Technologies, LLC (“Strike”) is part of the GTS family of > > > > >>> companies. Strike is a technology solutions provider, and is not > a > > > > broker > > > > >>> or dealer and does not transact any securities related business > > > > directly > > > > >>> whatsoever. This communication is the property of Strike and its > > > > >>> affiliates, and does not constitute an offer to sell or the > > > > solicitation > > > > >> of > > > > >>> an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. It is intended > > only > > > > for > > > > >>> the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information > that > > > is > > > > >>> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. > > > > >>> Distribution or copying of this communication, or the information > > > > >> contained > > > > >>> herein, by anyone other than the intended recipient is > prohibited. > > If > > > > you > > > > >>> have received this communication in error, please immediately > > notify > > > > >> Strike > > > > >>> at i...@striketechnologies.com, and delete and destroy any > copies > > > > >> hereof. > > > > >>> ________________________________ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> CONFIDENTIALITY / PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any > > > > attachments > > > > >>> are intended solely for the addressee. This transmission is > covered > > > by > > > > >> the > > > > >>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C ''2510-2521. The > > > > >>> information contained in this transmission is confidential in > > nature > > > > and > > > > >>> protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. > > 106-102, > > > > 113 > > > > >>> U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to attorney-client or > > > other > > > > >>> legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for > any > > > > >> purpose > > > > >>> other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly > prohibited, > > > and > > > > >> may > > > > >>> subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state > law. > > If > > > > you > > > > >>> are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please > DESTROY > > > ALL > > > > >>> COPIES RECEIVED and confirm destruction to the sender via return > > > > >>> transmittal. > > > > >>> B > > > > > KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB > > > > >>> [ X ܚX K K[XZ[ > > > > >>> ] ][ X ܚX P Z\ ˘\ X K ܙ B ܈ Y ] [ۘ[ [X[ K[XZ[ > > > > >>> ] Z [ Z\ ˘\ X K ܙ B > > > > >>> ________________________________ > > > > >>> Strike Technologies, LLC (“Strike”) is part of the GTS family of > > > > >>> companies. Strike is a technology solutions provider, and is not > a > > > > broker > > > > >>> or dealer and does not transact any securities related business > > > > directly > > > > >>> whatsoever. This communication is the property of Strike and its > > > > >>> affiliates, and does not constitute an offer to sell or the > > > > solicitation > > > > >> of > > > > >>> an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. It is intended > > only > > > > for > > > > >>> the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information > that > > > is > > > > >>> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. > > > > >>> Distribution or copying of this communication, or the information > > > > >> contained > > > > >>> herein, by anyone other than the intended recipient is > prohibited. > > If > > > > you > > > > >>> have received this communication in error, please immediately > > notify > > > > >> Strike > > > > >>> at i...@striketechnologies.com, and delete and destroy any > copies > > > > >> hereof. > > > > >>> ________________________________ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> CONFIDENTIALITY / PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any > > > > attachments > > > > >>> are intended solely for the addressee. This transmission is > covered > > > by > > > > >> the > > > > >>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C ''2510-2521. The > > > > >>> information contained in this transmission is confidential in > > nature > > > > and > > > > >>> protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. > > 106-102, > > > > 113 > > > > >>> U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to attorney-client or > > > other > > > > >>> legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for > any > > > > >> purpose > > > > >>> other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly > prohibited, > > > and > > > > >> may > > > > >>> subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state > law. > > If > > > > you > > > > >>> are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please > DESTROY > > > ALL > > > > >>> COPIES RECEIVED and confirm destruction to the sender via return > > > > >>> transmittal. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
