Skip to content

Set automatic notice for providers change log about min airflow version change #49932

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
eladkal wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Set automatic notice for providers change log about min airflow version change #49932

eladkal wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor

@eladkal eladkal commented Apr 29, 2025

No description provided.

@eladkal eladkal marked this pull request as draft April 29, 2025 08:02
amoghrajesh
amoghrajesh reviewed May 6, 2025
View reviewed changes
dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/prepare_providers/provider_documentation.py
)
jinja_context["WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES"] = with_breaking_changes
jinja_context["MAYBE_WITH_NEW_FEATURES"] = maybe_with_new_features
jinja_context["MAYBE_WITH_CHANGE_MIN_AIRFLOW_VERSION"] = maybe_with_change_min_airflow_version
Copy link
Contributor

@amoghrajesh amoghrajesh May 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you add a print statement here to print the jinja_context once? It will be clear.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@eladkal eladkal May 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It evaluates to False this is the issue :)
I want it to be true when I select at least one PR with v

Copy link
Contributor

@amoghrajesh amoghrajesh May 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah understood.

@amoghrajesh
Copy link
Contributor

amoghrajesh commented May 6, 2025

@eladkal which command are you running with? Are you passing the flag: --only-min-version-update?

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor Author

eladkal commented May 6, 2025

@eladkal which command are you running with? Are you passing the flag: --only-min-version-update?

No, the breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation --only-min-version-update is for bumping the version. This is done separately from the release. For example #49843
There are no changes in the changelog.rst during this process.

This change is not related to the version bump. It's about standard release process with breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation. The goal is when you mark one of the PRs with v it will just paste the static text in the change log.

@amoghrajesh
Copy link
Contributor

amoghrajesh commented May 6, 2025

@eladkal which command are you running with? Are you passing the flag: --only-min-version-update?

No, the breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation --only-min-version-update is for bumping the version. This is done separately from the release. For example #49843 There are no changes in the changelog.rst during this process.

This change is not related to the version bump. It's about standard release process with breeze release-management prepare-provider-documentation. The goal is when you mark one of the PRs with v it will just paste the static text in the change log.

Correct, but your code is relating the two. You pass the only-min-version-update as the value for maybe_with_change_min_airflow_version here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/49932/files#diff-54ea68b5e1e61ac0437df0ab7d99dc508595323b11847a957931e0d9007962d7R864

You should instead calculate the maybe_with_change_min_airflow_version on the fly.

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor Author

eladkal commented May 12, 2025

Closed in favor of #50476

@eladkal eladkal closed this May 12, 2025
@eladkal eladkal deleted the version branch May 12, 2025 07:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@amoghrajesh amoghrajesh amoghrajesh left review comments

@potiuk potiuk Awaiting requested review from potiuk potiuk is a code owner

@ashb ashb Awaiting requested review from ashb ashb is a code owner

@jedcunningham jedcunningham Awaiting requested review from jedcunningham jedcunningham is a code owner

@gopidesupavan gopidesupavan Awaiting requested review from gopidesupavan gopidesupavan is a code owner

@jscheffl jscheffl Awaiting requested review from jscheffl jscheffl will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review jscheffl is a code owner

@bugraoz93 bugraoz93 Awaiting requested review from bugraoz93 bugraoz93 will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review bugraoz93 is a code owner

@kaxil kaxil Awaiting requested review from kaxil kaxil will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review kaxil is a code owner

@jason810496 jason810496 Awaiting requested review from jason810496 jason810496 will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review jason810496 is a code owner

@ephraimbuddy ephraimbuddy Awaiting requested review from ephraimbuddy ephraimbuddy will be requested when the pull request is marked ready for review ephraimbuddy is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

area:dev-tools

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@eladkal @amoghrajesh