-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16.4k
Relax aibotocore requirements for eager upgrade #35945
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
Conversation
Seems that we have a conflicting requirement coming for s3fs for some reason requiring older aibotocore. In order to investigate, we release a bit the requiremnt to allow to generate new constraints and to see where it came freom.
|
Not sure what the reason is - but I saw it happening yesterday in my "common.io" chicken-egg PR - however it started to happen now in main as well (likely because of new provider release). I need to investigate why we have s3fs forced to be lower version than most recent 2023.10.0 - for some reason it's being disallowed to be used or at least For now - temporary lowering down the limit we have in the image (which is mostly added to limit back-tracking of |
|
Example failure here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/actions/runs/7028260044/job/19126641540 |
|
I don't understand why it worked before; the s3fs requirement was always the same: https://github.com/fsspec/s3fs/blob/2023.9.2/requirements.txt#L1 |
amoghrajesh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lgtm
|
Ah, it workerd with the last version Maybe it's better to fix s3fs version? WDYT? |
|
Let's wait for #35947 before merging. |
Yep. I know it worked - but for some reason (and I do not know yet why) it stopped. I tried to run my other PR #35890 which started to fail yesterday with s3fs >= 2023.10.0 and with recent incarnation of it - even with all the *fs >= 2023.10.0 and it did not work - it was causing infinite backtracking signalling that there is actually a conflict somewhere. It will need a bit of investigation to find out, so I prefer to relax it now and if it works, it will at least get the PRs green and allow to update other constraints. I think there is something fishy with *fs dependencies (which I was afraid of from the beginning) have something to do with it - but what it is, I am not sure yet. For now I will see if the relaxed dependencies will help. |
Yeah. Let's see - maybe it will behave differently - and maybe relaxing wont help either. |
|
Ah I see!
I had the same concerns too. |
|
Nope. We seem to have bactracking with that one as well. |
|
Closing in favour of #35952 |
Seems that we have a conflicting requirement coming for s3fs for some reason requiring older aibotocore. In order to investigate, we release a bit the requiremnt to allow to generate new constraints and to see where it came freom.
^ 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.