-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
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
Remove redshift async test job #30127
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest to sync with AWS before doing further work.
We are not yet sure if we should add this lib
#30032 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @shubham22 @kaxil
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @eladkal, I agree with your concern. I was testing the workaround suggested by @potiuk here #28850 (comment) to run the test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see that this is already merged, but can we please wait until 3/22 before making more deferrable contributions? Recent changes from @potiuk in #30144 do alleviate many concerns, but there is always a chance that users won't be able to access new Boto functionality. We are in the process of sharing the raised concerns internally at AWS. However, I do understand that there is no better alternative than using aiobotocore and tradeoff is not bad after the CI job separation. cc: @syedahsn @o-nikolas
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One more thing here. Technically with the job implemented as it is right now wiht my #30144 we have another possibility. We could reverse the approach.
Currently we remove
aiobotocore
in the separate job and upgrade to latest boto and run all the relevant provider tests.But we could do it the opposite: we could use latest boto/botocore in "main", remove aibotocore from the "devel" set of dependencies and install aiobotocore (together with downgrading boto/botocore) in the separate job.
This has slightly different characteristics:
So basically this is this trade-off:
Those are the two trade-offs, and we can still change the decision (easily) which way go. With #30144 this is as easy as changing few lines in the CI scripts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think shipping aiobotocore by default is the better option. It will be a smoother user experience if users don't have to change their workflows to use deferrables if their workflows use features not covered by aiobotocore. It's not an ideal situation in either case, but this option is less likely to cause issues for users wanting to use deferrable operators.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am with @o-nikolas on this one -- a case where everything works out of the box is better than if a user has to make choices depending.
Also, we want to increase and drive the adoption of Deferrable operators, and decreasing road-blocks for user's adopting it would be my preference
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree with the thoughts expressed by @o-nikolas @syedahsn and @kaxil. Priority should be given to providing a better out-of-the-box user experience. If we don't make aiobotocore the default option, it will increase the workload for users, and as Niko mentioned, it may require refactoring of DAGs once the user enables async. On the other hand, we don't have any evidence yet that restricting the botocore version will cause significant customer problems.
Thank you @potiuk for spending time on this and providing us with options. We're certainly converging to a better approach than what we started with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah. I did not want to bias it, but that was also my personal preference (but I wanted to objectively show you the options). It seems much easier to explain as well, and I have a feeling that deferring new features by few months is not a huge issue as the adoption is usually anyhow delayed and deferrable operators not being available by default would be a big bummer.
With the #30161 now merged, the aiobotocore will also be included in the PROD image by default, so we are on track to increase the adoption of deferrable operators :).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is awesome, look like we have solution now. Thank you so much @potiuk for stepping-up bringing it in better shape it was long since pending 🚀