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

Bump min version of Providers to 2.9 #44956

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2024
Merged

Bump min version of Providers to 2.9 #44956

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2024

Conversation

eladkal
Copy link
Contributor

@eladkal eladkal commented Dec 16, 2024

No description provided.

@eladkal eladkal merged commit 4b38bed into apache:main Dec 16, 2024
150 checks passed
@eladkal eladkal deleted the bump branch December 16, 2024 16:02
@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Dec 16, 2024

Nice!

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Dec 16, 2024

Also we should remove all conditional code with AIRFLOW_V_2_9_PLUS.

I've added a point about ti in "bumping min version",

  1. Remove AIRFLOW_V_2_X_PLUS in all tests (review and update skipif and other conditional
    behaviour and test_compat.py, where X is the TARGET version we change to. For example
    when we update min Airflow version to 2.9.0, we should remove all references to AIRFLOW_V_2_9_PLUS
    simply because "everything" in our tests is already 2.9.0+ and there is no need to exclude or
    modify tests for earlier versions of Airflow.

https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#bump-min-airflow-version-for-providers

I can do it tomorrow if no-one does it before and if no-one does it before.

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor Author

eladkal commented Dec 16, 2024

Also we should remove all conditional code with AIRFLOW_V_2_9_PLUS.

Ahhhhh. I looked for AIRFLOW_V_2_8_PLUS and didn't find any. I will handle this tommorow.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Dec 16, 2024

Ahhhhh. I looked for AIRFLOW_V_2_8_PLUS and didn't find any. I will handle this tommorow.

Yeah. It's not really obvious that we need to remove v2.9 when we set min to be v2.9 :) - I know. Had the same problem.

But it's the case actually - and I tried to make it explicit with the example :).

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