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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on September 30, 2021 #18638

Closed
27 of 56 tasks
potiuk opened this issue Sep 30, 2021 · 23 comments
Closed
27 of 56 tasks

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on September 30, 2021 #18638

potiuk opened this issue Sep 30, 2021 · 23 comments
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases

Comments

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Sep 30, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Body

I have a kind request for all the contributors to the latest provider packages release.
Could you help us to test the RC versions of the providers and let us know in the comment,
if the issue is addressed there.

Providers that need testing

Those are providers that require testing as there were some substantial changes introduced:

Provider amazon: 2.3.0rc1

Provider apache.cassandra: 2.1.0rc1

Provider apache.hdfs: 2.1.1rc1

Provider cncf.kubernetes: 2.0.3rc1

Provider databricks: 2.0.2rc1

Provider docker: 2.2.0rc1

Provider google: 6.0.0rc1

Provider hashicorp: 2.1.1rc1

Provider microsoft.azure: 3.2.0rc1

Provider microsoft.psrp: 1.0.1rc1

Provider neo4j: 2.0.2rc1

Provider papermill: 2.1.0rc1

Provider postgres: 2.3.0rc1

Provider slack: 4.1.0rc1

Provider snowflake: 2.2.0rc1

Provider ssh: 2.2.0rc1

New Providers:

Providers that do not need testing

We have a number of providers that had doc-only changes so they are not released.

Committer

  • I acknowledge that I am a maintainer/committer of the Apache Airflow project.
@potiuk potiuk added the kind:meta High-level information important to the community label Sep 30, 2021
@Aakcht
Copy link
Contributor

Aakcht commented Sep 30, 2021

Tested #18331 - all good, no more deprecation warning.

@tnyz
Copy link
Contributor

tnyz commented Sep 30, 2021

@potiuk is there a public-accessible test environment with the rc installed or do we need to test them in our own environment?

@mik-laj
Copy link
Member

mik-laj commented Sep 30, 2021

@tnyz We don't have a public environment, but you can use docker-compose. See: http://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/start/docker.html
To update packages, you should add _PIP_ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS environment variable to .env file.

@tnyz
Copy link
Contributor

tnyz commented Sep 30, 2021

tested #17998

task = BigQueryCreateExternalTableOperator(
    task_id="test",
    table_resource=table_resource,
    dag=dag,
    bucket=None,
    source_objects=None
)

we have to specify the required parameters (bucket, source_objects) to None which is ugly but works

@mnojek
Copy link
Contributor

mnojek commented Oct 1, 2021

Hi @potiuk
What is it that you expect us to do, actually?
My changes are only related to System Tests and they made them a bit more stable, so I'm curious what else should I do to assure that the quality hasn't dropped. Please explain, and I will try to act accordingly 😃

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Oct 1, 2021

Hi @potiuk What is it that you expect us to do, actually? My changes are only related to System Tests and they made them a bit more stable, so I'm curious what else should I do to assure that the quality hasn't dropped. Please explain, and I will try to act accordingly 😃

That's enough to get the comment :) . No need to test that particular one.

@deedmitrij
Copy link
Contributor

deedmitrij commented Oct 1, 2021 via email

@nathadfield
Copy link
Collaborator

All good on #18064 as far as I can tell.

@pavelhlushchanka
Copy link
Contributor

#17626 works fine

@mariotaddeucci
Copy link
Contributor

mariotaddeucci commented Oct 1, 2021 •
edited
Loading

#17887 and #18027 works fine.
Actually the #18027 has a duplicated code that is removed on PR #18671

@josh-fell
Copy link
Contributor

Tested and verified #18241, #18620, #17885, #18386, and #18456 👍

@potiuk I noticed #18386 is listed under the Microsoft Azure provider but this fix was built on top of #18203. Just wondering if it’s worth calling out the latter PR change in the Azure provider changelog as well?

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Oct 1, 2021

@potiuk I noticed #18386 is listed under the Microsoft Azure provider but this fix was built on top of #18203. Just wondering if it’s worth calling out the latter PR change in the Azure provider changelog as well?

Yeah. I know why I have not included it. It is merged as Initial commit (#18203) :). I will update it in the docs (I cannot do it in the packages that we are voting on, but the docs can be updated later - and future releses will get it corrected.

@josh-fell
Copy link
Contributor

@potiuk I noticed #18386 is listed under the Microsoft Azure provider but this fix was built on top of #18203. Just wondering if it’s worth calling out the latter PR change in the Azure provider changelog as well?

Yeah. I know why I have not included it. It is merged as Initial commit (#18203) :). I will update it in the docs (I cannot do it in the packages that we are voting on, but the docs can be updated later - and future releses will get it corrected.

Woof that is a horrible commit message so totally understandable. I mistakenly thought that the PR title was always used as the commit message but doesn't seem to be the case when there is only 1 commit in the PR. Thanks for clarifying!

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Oct 3, 2021

Woof that is a horrible commit message so totally understandable. I mistakenly thought that the PR title was always used as the commit message but doesn't seem to be the case when there is only 1 commit in the PR. Thanks for clarifying!

Mistake was mine, as I should have noticed that while merging (but I likely clicked "merge" too fast).

@potiuk potiuk closed this as completed Oct 3, 2021
@potiuk potiuk reopened this Oct 3, 2021
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Oct 3, 2021

We are progressing quite well :). I would appreciate some moret testing tomorrow, so that we can have higher confidence when voting on it !

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Oct 3, 2021

[NOTE TO SELF] -> we need to update the Changelog to include Redshift Amazon Provider dependency on 2.3.0 Postgres provider version (see #18671 (comment))

@JavierLopezT JavierLopezT mentioned this issue Oct 4, 2021
Merged
@m1racoli
Copy link
Contributor

m1racoli commented Oct 4, 2021

#18006 works as expected 👍🏼

@denimalpaca
Copy link
Contributor

denimalpaca commented Oct 4, 2021 via email

@jedcunningham
Copy link
Member

Tested #18070 and #18377 👍

@john-jac
Copy link
Contributor

john-jac commented Oct 4, 2021 via email

@JavierLopezT
Copy link
Contributor

#17448 Has at least one important bug, so can't be included in this release

@john-jac
Copy link
Contributor

john-jac commented Oct 5, 2021 via email

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Oct 5, 2021

Thanks everyone for testing. Providers relased (except amazon which waits for the fix for Secret Manager - I will release and RC2 when it 's ready with "incremental" testing needs.

@potiuk potiuk closed this as completed Oct 5, 2021
@Aakcht Aakcht mentioned this issue Oct 30, 2021
Closed
54 tasks
@potiuk potiuk added the testing status Status of testing releases label Feb 14, 2022
This was referenced Feb 14, 2022
Open
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests