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

Fix Databricks provider for Airflow 2.2.x #25674

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 12, 2022

Conversation

alexott
Copy link
Contributor

@alexott alexott commented Aug 11, 2022

The problem was caused by using ProviderInfo.is_source field that was introduced only in Airflow 2.3.0.

The problem was caused by using `ProviderInfo.is_source` field that was introduced only in
Airflow 2.3.0.
@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Aug 11, 2022

The problem was caused by using ProviderInfo.is_source field that was introduced only in Airflow 2.3.0.

I will add a test to detect and prevent this in the future

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Aug 11, 2022

Pretty unexpected one :)

@alexott
Copy link
Contributor Author

alexott commented Aug 11, 2022

It's really is a one side effect of having provider in the same repo as core - you always on the bleeding edge :-)

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Aug 12, 2022

It's really is a one side effect of having provider in the same repo as core - you always on the bleeding edge :-)

Yeah. providing that you will make sure that you use the right airflow in the multi-repo case when you develop the provider. Which is one of the things that needs to be solved in order to finally split - to make the provider development experience as good as it is now without adding necessary effort on contributors (with one of the benefits - shielding the users better from thiose kind of problems while not introducing more problems) - this will be big part of the "split out providers" AIP. Hopefully in the next few months (as soon as we finish Breeze transition I will focus my efforts on that one).

Such a split however has the property that when you DO want to introduce a chnge that will span through several components (like for example current SQL unification) then it is a lot harder to coordinate such changes. That's why it's great the "comon.sql" move was done before and we also need to look if there are more things like that to extract BEFORE the split. It will be WAY harder to do simiilar moves when we split.

@kaxil kaxil merged commit 4d32f61 into apache:main Aug 12, 2022
@alexott alexott deleted the databricks-fix-telemetry-error branch August 12, 2022 13:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants