Main reason is that this might avoid duplication and remove ambiguity of
what is being imported. If we keep the same name, we will have to have
something like that:
a) folder where project is
b) python package we import
So ...if we do tests_common, we will have to do:
tests_common <- folder
Hello again,
Bubbling this up. Would really appreciate your thoughts, comments or
PRs for *debugging improvements* here:
https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/421/views/1
Please feel free to add your own ideas to this project, as the goal is
to make Airflow users' debugging experience better in
Overall +1 on this one. Regarding the naming, why not keeping "tests_common"
instead of "common_test_code"? I am not a big fan of "common_test_code" but it
is obviously just a personal opinion (as it is always with naming :))
On 2025/02/16 13:30:09 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > Just wondernig... would
+1 for ruff rules :)
Also would be nice to introduce 'Dag' to replace 'DAG' in the Airflow
docs, in line with the new UI changes and to make the renaming
consistent across user-facing pages.
Regards,
Omkar
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:12 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1 :) . Maybe we could add a ruff
+1 for this! And now is the best time.
I'm not sure whether folks are comfortable with something not working on the
new UI for now, though 🤔 (but there are also things breaking in the old UI that
we won't fix anyway). Even if we decide to keep the old UI for one or two
alpha/beta releases, I th
+1
Now is the ideal time to make the new UI the default. The old UI has
several issues that we won't be fixing. Transitioning to the new UI will
encourage users to engage with it more actively and will provide an
excellent opportunity to identify and address any existing gaps.
*Ankit Chaurasia*
I think my biggest concern is a marketing one and not a technical one.
As has been mentioned on the thread the terms airflow and dag are kind of
synonymous and I certainly don’t want to give the impression that we are
breaking more than we are breaking.
I wouldn’t die on this hill, but I’m slight
Thanks for all the work you do, Omkar!
Looking forward to the project progress.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:51 PM Omkar P wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> Bubbling this up. Would really appreciate your thoughts, comments or
> PRs for *debugging improvements* here:
> http
+1
Now is the perfect time to make the new UI the default and let users
experience it. This will help drive traffic to the new interface for
testing, allowing us to identify bugs early. Plus, by the time of the
official release, users will already have had a preview of what’s coming.
Thanks & Reg
+1 to this idea overall.
A bit torn on naming it "common_test_code" -- no strong reason for it but
names like: `airflow_test_utils` or
`airflow_test_shared` sound better to me. No strong objection though.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:16 PM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Mai
+1 for this! The new UI is the way to go, and as more people start using
it, it provides a great opportunity to identify and address any existing
gaps.
Regards,
Rahul Vats
9953794332
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 09:41, Amogh Desai wrote:
> Big +1!!
>
> It is not easy to maintain the old UI with the r
Hello everyone!
As we gear up for the Airflow 3 release, I’d like to kick off a discussion
about the timing of removing the old FAB-based UI from Airflow core. We’ve
been investing in the React-based UI for a while now, and I know that we
have made tremendous progress on this.
The FAB UI removal
Big +1!!
It is not easy to maintain the old UI with the rapid development going on
with the new and it only makes little sense to do so. I have also been
hitting
some strange issues with the old UI and took that as a sign to use the new
one. Also, using the new UI will require a bit of unlearning
Hard to say until it's looked at :)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:45 PM Aritra Basu
wrote:
> I can take it up, it's mostly just a doc update right? Or are we doing code
> files replacement too?
> --
> Regards,
> Aritra Basu
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, 12:55 am Jarek Potiuk, wrote:
>
> > Sounds like an
Sounds like another +1000 files big PR is coming :) ? Any volunteers to
make it ? It's fun.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:52 PM Omkar P wrote:
> +1 for ruff rules :)
>
> Also would be nice to introduce 'Dag' to replace 'DAG' in the Airflow
> docs, in line with the new UI changes and to make the rena
I can take it up, it's mostly just a doc update right? Or are we doing code
files replacement too?
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, 12:55 am Jarek Potiuk, wrote:
> Sounds like another +1000 files big PR is coming :) ? Any volunteers to
> make it ? It's fun.
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 a
I’m not sure about adding ruff rules here 🤔 I think ruff rules are best suited
for user-facing things but not the airflow code base itself. If what we mean is
adding a rule to avoid users using "DAG" *after* we rename it, it's definitely
a +1000.
I just created GitHub issues for this removing "
+1 :) . Maybe we could add a ruff rule for that :)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 8:27 AM Wei Lee wrote:
> It seems that our current conclusion is to use "dag" or "Dag" instead of
> "DAG" whenever possible. Should we replace all "DAG" in the codebase with
> "dag" or "Dag"? If it's too late for that (wh
Fantastic work everyone!
Pavan
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:40 PM Vikram Koka
wrote:
> Amazing work team!
> Kudos to everyone who contributed to this effort.
>
> It was wonderful to see this coming together and I was amazed how quickly
> all of you made this happen.
>
> Vikram
>
>
> On Tue, Feb
19 matches
Mail list logo
