Skip to content

Newest providers incorrectly include gitpython and wheel in install_requires #22380

Closed

Description

@xylar

Apache Airflow Provider(s)

ftp, openfaas, sqlite

Versions of Apache Airflow Providers

I am the maintainer of the Airflow Providers on conda-forge. The providers I listed above are the first 3 I have looked at but I believe all are affected. These are the new releases (as of yesterday) of all providers.

Apache Airflow version

2.2.4 (latest released)

Operating System

Linux (Azure CI)

Deployment

Other Docker-based deployment

Deployment details

This is on conda-forge Azure CI.

What happened

All providers I have looked at (and I suspect all providers) now have gitpython and wheel in their install_requires:

From apache-airflow-providers-ftp-2.1.1.tar.gz:

install_requires = 
	
	gitpython
	wheel

I believe these requirements are incorrect (neither should be needed at install time) and this will make maintaining these packages on conda-forge an absolute nightmare! (It's already a serious challenge because I get a PR to update each time each provider gets updated.)

What you think should happen instead

These install requirements should be removed.

How to reproduce

Open any of the newly released providers from pypi and look at setup.cfg.

Anything else

No response

Are you willing to submit PR?

  • Yes I am willing to submit a PR!

Code of Conduct

Activity

  1. boring-cyborg commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @boring-cyborg

    Thanks for opening your first issue here! Be sure to follow the issue template!

  2. xylar commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @xylar
    ContributorAuthor

    I believe this was added in #22226, perhaps by mistake?

  3. eladkal commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @eladkal
    Contributor
  4. self-assigned this
    on Mar 20, 2022
  5. potiuk commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    Yep. This is my mistake indeed. I will have to rerelease all of the providers and yank all of them I am afraid

  6. xylar commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @xylar
    ContributorAuthor

    @potiuk, no worries on my side. I know I sounded pretty annoyed above. But this was the excuse I needed to automate my update process on conda-forge.

    Sorry that it's going to be a bit of work for you, though. Thanks for taking care of it!

  7. potiuk commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    Sorry that it's going to be a bit of work for you, though. Thanks for taking care of it!

    No - no worries at all - thanks for reporting it so quickly @xylar actually. It slipeed my automation tests (for good reasons) and I have the releases mostly automated, so the work from my side is not as big as it might seem (highly recommend to add the automation indeed :).

  8. potiuk commented on Mar 20, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    BTW. Learning for myself - DO split changes and semi-automated documentation generation. This way the change could have been detected at code review time. The #22226 change was far too big to catch it.

  9. added a commit that references this issue on Mar 20, 2022
    b0ac238
  10. added a commit that references this issue on Mar 20, 2022
    ab4ba6f
  11. potiuk commented on Mar 24, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    FYI in case you did not notice @xylar - we are voting on the packages with the fix Discussion here: https://lists.apache.org/thread/g990cb3vqkzq7jr3yvldy253wtt8vhnq and "test issue" in #22480.

    Would be great if you could confirm that the RC packages look good for you as well (few of them that contains some other fixed are mentioned and linked from #22480).

  12. potiuk commented on Mar 24, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    BTW. I compared (for example) https://pypi.org/pypi/apache-airflow-providers-docker/2.5.1/json with https://pypi.org/pypi/apache-airflow-providers-docker/2.5.2rc1/json so it should be fine - but I think with your conda stuff you can check more :)

  13. xylar commented on Mar 24, 2022

    @xylar
    ContributorAuthor

    Thank you! I agree that the the dependencies in apache-airflow-providers-docker 2.5.2rc1 look good. If the other providers are similar, we'll be in great shape!

  14. xylar commented on Mar 24, 2022

    @xylar
    ContributorAuthor

    Yep, I took a look at several more and they also look good.

  15. potiuk commented on Mar 24, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    Yep, I took a look at several more and they also look good.

    Cool. Thanks for sparing another pair of eyes :)

  16. potiuk commented on Mar 26, 2022

    @potiuk
    Member

    New providers released. They are all yours @xylar

  17. xylar commented on Mar 26, 2022

    @xylar
    ContributorAuthor

    Thanks again. Most new providers should be should now be available from conda-forge. There were a few newer ones that I hadn't added recipes for yet. They're awaiting review (or review of missing dependencies).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions