Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Move PyCharm instructions to top of the file - #43081
Closed
vincbeck wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
vincbeckforce-pushed
the
vincbeck/pycharm
branch
from
October 16, 2024 14:59
0c57a4d to
ba69620Comparevincbeck
commented
Oct 16, 2024
ContributorAuthor
Closing it. Imports must be at the top of the file, I thought it was a linter thing but it is a syntax thing. Not much I can do |
potiuk added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. Also removed the `__init__.py` file from "providers" directory, it is not needed there, because "providers" is just a folder where we keep provider files, it's not a Python package. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccesful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code.
potiuk added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. Also removed the `__init__.py` file from "providers" directory, it is not needed there, because "providers" is just a folder where we keep provider files, it's not a Python package. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccesful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes a few other teething problems with setup of tests that were introcuded in apache#42505 and apache#43802 "masked" by having `__init__.py` added in providers package: * openlineage extractor test that should not expect "providers.tests.*" but "tests.*" package * common_sql_api_stubs wrongly calculating generated path for stub-generated files * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present)
potiuk added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. Also removed the `__init__.py` file from "providers" directory, it is not needed there, because "providers" is just a folder where we keep provider files, it's not a Python package. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccesful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes a few other teething problems with setup of tests that were introcuded in apache#42505 and apache#43802 "masked" by having `__init__.py` added in providers package: * common.sql interface pre-commit used wrong path to generated files * openlineage extractor test that should not expect "providers.tests.*" but "tests.*" package * common_sql_api_stubs wrongly calculating generated path for stub-generated files * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present)
kaxil pushed a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. Also removed the `__init__.py` file from "providers" directory, it is not needed there, because "providers" is just a folder where we keep provider files, it's not a Python package. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccesful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes a few other teething problems with setup of tests that were introcuded in apache#42505 and apache#43802 "masked" by having `__init__.py` added in providers package: * common.sql interface pre-commit used wrong path to generated files * openlineage extractor test that should not expect "providers.tests.*" but "tests.*" package * common_sql_api_stubs wrongly calculating generated path for stub-generated files * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present)
kaxil added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
…3173) Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in #42505. There were earlier - unsuccessful - attempts to fix it in the #43116 and #43081 that followed #42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes following problem: * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present) --------- Co-authored-by: Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
harjeevanmaan pushed a commit
to harjeevanmaan/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2024
…ache#43173) Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccessful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes following problem: * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present) --------- Co-authored-by: Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
PaulKobow7536 pushed a commit
to PaulKobow7536/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2024
…ache#43173) Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccessful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes following problem: * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present) --------- Co-authored-by: Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
ellisms pushed a commit
to ellisms/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2024
…ache#43173) Cleans-up airflow and providers `__init__.py" files in order to get providers import work again. This is done by excluding the two `__init__.py` files from automated ruff isort rules adding `from __future__ import annotations`. That should finally get rid of the Intellij teething import problem that has been introduced in apache#42505. There were earlier - unsuccessful - attempts to fix it in the apache#43116 and apache#43081 that followed apache#42951 - but the key is that Pycharm requires the namespace's extend_path to be first "real" line of code in the `__init__.py` to understand that the package is an "explicit" namespace package - and it conflicts with the requirement of "from __future__ import annotations" to be the first line of Python code. Also this PR fixes following problem: * pytest_plugin expecting .asf.yml in "airflow" sources - even during compatibility tests with older version of airflow (where the .asf.yml is not present) --------- Co-authored-by: Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
These instructions do not work with my PyCharm if these instructions are not at the top of the file.
Follow-up of #42951
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.