Closed ephraimbuddy closed 1 year ago
34011 and #34636 both should have been skipped - providers and dev env respectively.
Mistake
Tested #34779 https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34779, working as expected.
Thanks, Utkarsh Sharma
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 7:54 PM Tyler Calder @.***> wrote:
34568 https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34568 Is working as
expected
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/34830#issuecomment-1755534215, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADDLAHOCBOWAFK7D2GOHDKTX6VLDLAVCNFSM6AAAAAA5YNKLICVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONJVGUZTIMRRGU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34072 and https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/34136 work as expected.
I also tested a few other PRs:
34072 and #34136 work as expected.
I also tested a few other PRs:
- Works as expected: Add missing audit logs for default flask action: add, edit and delete #34090
- Does not work for me: Fix unfound ab_user table in the CLI session #34120 (details below)
I don't think the failing one should be considered a blocker since no new issue was introduced. cc @dstandish @hussein-awala
34072 and #34136 work as expected.
I also tested a few other PRs:
- Works as expected: Add missing audit logs for default flask action: add, edit and delete #34090
- Does not work for me: Fix unfound ab_user table in the CLI session #34120 (details below)
I don't think the failing one should be considered a blocker since no new issue was introduced. cc @dstandish @hussein-awala
Yes it should not considered as blocker, but if there is a different blocker for the RC (I hope not), we can cherry-pick #34656 in the next RC
I tested my changes, they are present in the RC. I tested only the bug fixes, and all looks good, except #34120 as discussed above.
34072 and #34136 work as expected.
I also tested a few other PRs:
- Works as expected: Add missing audit logs for default flask action: add, edit and delete #34090
- Does not work for me: Fix unfound ab_user table in the CLI session #34120 (details below)
I don't think the failing one should be considered a blocker since no new issue was introduced. cc @dstandish @hussein-awala
Yes it should not considered as blocker, but if there is a different blocker for the RC (I hope not), we can cherry-pick #34656 in the next RC
We probably need another fix. Also, you can go to the v2-7-stable to confirm if the change is there
Checked for #34248 and can confirm that (1) code is correctly merged and (2) fix is working! Thanks for making the release!
Airflow 2.7.2 has been released. Thank you all for testing the release candidate
Only verified after release but #34531 is working.
Body
We are kindly requesting that contributors to Apache Airflow RC 2.7.2rc1 help test the RC.
Please let us know by commenting if the issue is addressed in the latest RC.
test_xcom_map_error_fails_task
test (#33178)==
byis
for types comparison (#33983): @hussein-awalaversion_added
field in configuration option doesn't work correctly in providers documentation (#34005)pyproject.toml
(#34014): @risicle @Taragolis Linked issues:pyproject.toml
[project]
section withoutname
andversion
attributes is not pep 621 compliant (#33854)airflow tasks test
(#34109)NOT EXISTS
subquery instead oftuple_not_in_condition
(#33527)dag_id
+task_id
is too long with OTEL integration enabled. (#34416)astroid
version < 3 (#34658): @TaragolisSesssionExemptMixin
(#34696): @dkalamarThanks to all who contributed to the release (probably not a complete list!): @dkalamar @jedcunningham @Raul824 @yiannis-had @Xiroo @erdos2n @drobert-bfm @dstandish @ephraimbuddy @Usiel @potiuk @hussein-awala @eumiro @mbarugelCA @jens-scheffler-bosch @utkarsharma2 @yermalov-here @Taragolis @Abhishek-kumar-samsung @csp33 @pankajkoti @mj-dd @gbonazzoli @fritz-astronomer @sa1 @ldacey @SamWheating @risicle @Calder-Ty @Bisk1 @bolkedebruin @uranusjr @alartum @Jayden-Chiu
Committer