Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Status of testing of Apache Airflow 2.7.1rc2 #34065

Closed
46 of 97 tasks
ephraimbuddy opened this issue Sep 4, 2023 · 26 comments
Closed
46 of 97 tasks

Status of testing of Apache Airflow 2.7.1rc2 #34065

ephraimbuddy opened this issue Sep 4, 2023 · 26 comments
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases

Comments

@ephraimbuddy
Copy link
Contributor

ephraimbuddy commented Sep 4, 2023

Body

We are kindly requesting that contributors to Apache Airflow RC 2.7.1rc1 help test the RC.

Please let us know by commenting if the issue is addressed in the latest RC.

Thanks to all who contributed to the release (probably not a complete list!):
@agomez-etsy @Lee-W @jedcunningham @potiuk @cesar-vermeulen @pankajkoti @abhishekbhakat @dstandish @vandonr-amz @SamWheating @joeknize-bc @ephraimbuddy @ohaibbq @alexbegg @Michalosu @BohdanSemonov @pierrejeambrun @ferruzzi @eumiro @mobuchowski @Taragolis @Talvarenga @aipatr @LipuFei @Bisk1 @uranusjr @hussein-awala @vincbeck @s0neq @klexadoc @boushphong @eladkal @jens-scheffler-bosch @Owen-CH-Leung @nathadfield @ivan-afonichkin

Committer

  • I acknowledge that I am a maintainer/committer of the Apache Airflow project.
@ephraimbuddy ephraimbuddy added the kind:meta High-level information important to the community label Sep 4, 2023
@pankajkoti
Copy link
Member

hi @ephraimbuddy , wondering why #33039 is part of Airflow RC? I think it went in the Sqoop provider, no?

@ephraimbuddy
Copy link
Contributor Author

hi @ephraimbuddy , wondering why #33039 is part of Airflow RC? I think it went in the Sqoop provider, no?

It's because of conflict resolution, trying to cherry-pick cleanly. We had many refactoring PRs that addressed issues across core and providers. If you look at the description on the sync PR: #33826 I mentioned about provider changes getting cherry-picked to core.
You do not need to test this in this case

@cesar-vermeulen
Copy link

I encountered an issue when upgrading to 2.7.1rc1, linked to the pydantic upgrade. Do I open a seperate issue for this or can this be discussed here?
Great expectations does not yet support pydantic > 2.0:
great-expectations/great_expectations#8604

Because of this, we are unable to upgrade our airflow version

@Taragolis
Copy link
Contributor

Check on fresh Airflow 2.7.1.rc1

@ephraimbuddy
Copy link
Contributor Author

ephraimbuddy commented Sep 4, 2023

I encountered an issue when upgrading to 2.7.1rc1, linked to the pydantic upgrade. Do I open a seperate issue for this or can this be discussed here? Great expectations does not yet support pydantic > 2.0: great-expectations/great_expectations#8604

Because of this, we are unable to upgrade our airflow version

Ops. Looks like we don't currently have great expectation in our codebase but would like to hear what others think cc @potiuk

@hussein-awala
Copy link
Member

hussein-awala commented Sep 4, 2023 via email

@ephraimbuddy
Copy link
Contributor Author

I encountered an issue when upgrading to 2.7.1rc1, linked to the pydantic
upgrade. Do I open a seperate issue for this or can this be discussed here? Great expectations does not yet support pydantic > 2.0: great-expectations/great_expectations#8604 <great-expectations/great_expectations#8604> Airflow doesn't have an official integration/support for great expectations, so if great expectations doesn't support pydantic v2 which we use in 2.7.1, IMHO this should not be considered a breaking change.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:28 PM Andrey Anshin @.> wrote: Check on fresh Airflow 2.7.1.rc1 - #33672 <#33672> - Less intensive queries to DB. Shorter execution time, less traffic between backend and Airflow - #33503 <#33503> - Seems working with Postgres/MySQL as expected - #33535 <#33535> - Work as expected in the UI — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#34065 (comment)>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFCS775S3YTSFWWQA7LUH6LXYXXQLANCNFSM6AAAAAA4J6KWGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.>

Not a breaking change but great expectation is widely used, I think we should consider it

@hussein-awala
Copy link
Member

Not a breaking change but great expectation is widely used, I think we should consider it

My only concern is that pydantic v2 was added to fix a bug or just an improvement? if not maybe we should move it to 2.8.0

@ephraimbuddy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not a breaking change but great expectation is widely used, I think we should consider it

My only concern is that pydantic v2 was added to fix a bug or just an improvement? if not maybe we should move it to 2.8.0

Yeah, I think it's for improvement

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Sep 4, 2023

Not a breaking change but great expectation is widely used, I think we should consider it

My only concern is that pydantic v2 was added to fix a bug or just an improvement? if not maybe we should move it to 2.8.0

Yeah, I think it's for improvement

Specifically for AIP-44 so yes ww move it down to v1 and we will release for 2.8.0 (when I hope AIP-44 will be ready to ship). By then Pydantic 2 should be much more widespread.

@pankajkoti
Copy link
Member

pankajkoti commented Sep 4, 2023

hi,
Tested the below PRs are included and they all work as expected.

  1. Remove the replace to <br> tag in Provider's view #33326 - The BR tag no longer appears in the providers view. Works as expected
  2. Use a trimmed version of README.md for PyPI #33637 - The generated/PYPI_README.md file is present in the RC and is pointed to in the setup.cfg for long_description for the package.
  3. Remove print introduced in PR #32261 #34008 : The endpoint no longer prints - Works as expected

As noted in comment #34065 (comment),
Ignored cherry-picked PR for conflict resolution #33039

Thank you for including all of these 🙏🏽

@Bisk1
Copy link
Contributor

Bisk1 commented Sep 4, 2023

Hi,
I verified that this change works as expected in UI in 2.7.1rc1

@ephraimbuddy ephraimbuddy changed the title Status of testing of Apache Airflow 2.7.1rc1 Status of testing of Apache Airflow 2.7.1rc2 Sep 4, 2023
@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Sep 4, 2023

Confirmed all my changes are in.! Looks good.

@pankajkoti
Copy link
Member

+1. Checked my changes from RC1 (#34065 (comment)) are included here too and all work fine.

@LipuFei
Copy link
Contributor

LipuFei commented Sep 5, 2023

Confirmed that #33651 and #33652 are fixed in RC2.

@klexadoc
Copy link

klexadoc commented Sep 5, 2023

Confirmed that #33478 is fixed

@eladkal eladkal added the testing status Status of testing releases label Sep 5, 2023
@ohaibbq
Copy link
Contributor

ohaibbq commented Sep 5, 2023

Confirmed #32731 is fixed in RC1

@khmelevskiy
Copy link

khmelevskiy commented Sep 5, 2023

i checked the version of airflow:2.7.1rc2-python3.10.

run dag (test)
-> let it work
-> rename dag (add _v2, eg = test_v2)
result - bug, there are 2 dags test and test_v2.

#33778 (#33698)

The key moment, dag worked before renaming

@SamWheating
Copy link
Contributor

SamWheating commented Sep 5, 2023

I have pulled the 2.7.1rc2 commit and verified the following fixes in Breeze:

#33622
#33931
#33965

#33735 is a docs-only fix and should be fine.

I'm trying to verify #33632 but running into issues triggering the permissions sync (this issue might predate this release?) I will keep investigating and confirm.

Update: I have found some issues preventing #33632 from working as expected. I will work on a fix and provide updates in #34114, but in the meantime we could also remove this commit from the release and save it for 2.7.2? I will leave it up to you.

@vandonr-amz
Copy link
Contributor

good for me

@Lee-W
Copy link
Member

Lee-W commented Sep 6, 2023

Tested #33403, #33401, #33196

@Lee-W
Copy link
Member

Lee-W commented Sep 6, 2023

Also tested #33424

@jscheffl
Copy link
Contributor

jscheffl commented Sep 7, 2023

Checked #33141 and can confirm it is working.

Found a minor "glitch" of string formatting as we forked code of Flask-AppBuilder (manager.py) into the Airflow repo and the Flask Appbuilder has changed the string formatting upstream, the constants we source in manager.py:499 for example are now printed with %s instead of the content.
I assume not critical, will open a follow-up bug ticket (if not already open)

@ephraimbuddy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Airflow 2.7.1 is now released. Thank you all for testing this release

@hussein-awala
Copy link
Member

Found a minor "glitch" of string formatting as we forked code of Flask-AppBuilder (manager.py) into the Airflow repo and the Flask Appbuilder has changed the string formatting upstream, the constants we source in manager.py:499 for example are now printed with %s instead of the content. I assume not critical, will open a follow-up bug ticket (if not already open)

@jens-scheffler-bosch could you check if #34139 fix the bug you are talking about?

@jscheffl
Copy link
Contributor

jscheffl commented Sep 7, 2023

Found a minor "glitch" of string formatting as we forked code of Flask-AppBuilder (manager.py) into the Airflow repo and the Flask Appbuilder has changed the string formatting upstream, the constants we source in manager.py:499 for example are now printed with %s instead of the content. I assume not critical, will open a follow-up bug ticket (if not already open)

@jens-scheffler-bosch could you check if #34139 fix the bug you are talking about?

Perfect. Yes. that was what I was referring to. Did not find the issue by search... so fixed already, GREAT!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests