Move fab provider to new structure

[josix]

related: #46045, #42523

• move failing tests to FAB
• fix unit tests
• move 3rd-party-license

---

^ 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.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

[potiuk]

This one will be a bit tricky and I think it will be best to move those failing tests to FAB @vincbeck -> I think that was also your thought ?

[vincbeck]

This one will be a bit tricky and I think it will be best to move those failing tests to FAB @vincbeck -> I think that was also your thought ?

Some of these tests yes but some of them will be deleted when the legacy UI is deleted. For example, test_views_variable should not be moved to FAB provider. Actually just test_views_acl and test_views_custom_user_views should be moved. Adding that to my todo list :). (Or happy to review it someone wants to do it :))

[eladkal]

We need also to move the 3rd party licenses of fab
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/providers/src/airflow/providers/3rd-party-licenses/LICENSES-ui.txt

[utkarsharma2]

@josix Is there an ETA for us to close this PR?

[potiuk]

@josix Is there an ETA for us to close this PR?

FYI: @utkarsharma2 -> if you are asking about release of Airflow - this one has nothing to do. We need to have fab provider released from the providers-fab/v1_5 branch - but this one is not needed for that.

[josix]

Thanks, everyone, for pointing me in the right direction. I'll continue migrating these tests. A conservative ETA is 2/7. I hope this won't block others' work, but if it does, I can try to finish it earlier.

[utkarsharma2]

FYI: @utkarsharma2 -> if you are asking about release of Airflow - this one has nothing to do. We need to have fab provider released from the providers-fab/v1_5 branch - but this one is not needed for that.

@potiuk It's not related to the release. But another issue I'm facing is that I'm unable to install the providers from the source and without this PR merged to the main branch, I can't install fab provider explicitly as well.

[potiuk]

@potiuk It's not related to the release. But another issue I'm facing is that I'm unable to install the providers from the source and without this PR merged to the main branch, I can't install fab providers explicitly as well.

As discussed - I think uv pip install (for speed) and getting rid of --editable install should solve at least the installation problem.

[josix]

Hi @vincbeck, I've fixed and moved the related tests, could you help review if the change aligns with your thoughts? thanks!

[vincbeck]

Awesome job! Thank you for doing it!

[potiuk]

Awesome job! Thank you for doing it!

fantastic!