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

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on December 31, 2021 #20615

Closed
37 of 91 tasks
potiuk opened this issue Dec 31, 2021 · 27 comments
Closed
37 of 91 tasks

Status of testing Providers that were prepared on December 31, 2021 #20615

potiuk opened this issue Dec 31, 2021 · 27 comments
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases

Comments

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Dec 31, 2021

Body

I have a kind request for all the contributors to the latest provider packages release.
Could you please help us to test the RC versions of the providers?

Let us know in the comment, whether the issue is addressed.

Those are providers that require testing as there were some substantial changes introduced:

Provider amazon: 2.6.0rc1

Provider apache.druid: 2.2.0rc1

Provider apache.spark: 2.0.3rc1

Provider cncf.kubernetes: 3.0.0rc1

Provider databricks: 2.2.0rc1

Provider docker: 2.4.0rc1

Provider facebook: 2.2.0rc1

Provider google: 6.3.0rc1

Provider http: 2.0.2rc1

Provider imap: 2.1.0rc1

Provider jenkins: 2.0.4rc1

Provider microsoft.azure: 3.5.0rc1

Provider mongo: 2.3.0rc1

Provider neo4j: 2.1.0rc1

Provider opsgenie: 3.0.0rc1

Provider oracle: 2.1.0rc1

Provider papermill: 2.2.0rc1

Provider sftp: 2.4.0rc1

Provider snowflake: 2.4.0rc1

Provider tableau: 2.1.3rc1

Provider yandex: 2.2.0rc1

Committer

  • I acknowledge that I am a maintainer/committer of the Apache Airflow project.
@potiuk potiuk added the kind:meta High-level information important to the community label Dec 31, 2021
@PApostol
Copy link
Contributor

PApostol commented Jan 2, 2022

#19978 addresses the issue and works as expected.

@saveriogzz
Copy link
Contributor

#20164 all good! ✅

@mariotaddeucci
Copy link
Contributor

#20506 all good o/

@eskarimov
Copy link
Contributor

#20536 tested, works as expected ✅

@bhavaniravi
Copy link
Contributor

#19280 is a docstring update, no code changes

@alexott
Copy link
Contributor

alexott commented Jan 3, 2022

#20550 is verified, works as intended

@pierrejeambrun
Copy link
Member

pierrejeambrun commented Jan 3, 2022

#20263 working 👍

@piotrkmita
Copy link
Contributor

#19984 tested. It's working as expected.

@harishkrao
Copy link
Contributor

#20509 tested, working as expected.

@raphaelauv
Copy link
Contributor

raphaelauv commented Jan 3, 2022

Simplify KubernetesPodOperator (#19572)

I tried different scenario it work correctly

@jon-fearer
Copy link
Contributor

#20001 Looks good

@kazanzhy
Copy link
Contributor

kazanzhy commented Jan 3, 2022

#20145 is devoted to the documentation
#20091 tests also changed as well

Looks good

@dstandish
Copy link
Contributor

Simplify KubernetesPodOperator (#19572)

I tried different scenario it work correctly

Thank you @raphaelauv

I tested too... "works on my machine" ;)

@mrkm4ntr
Copy link
Contributor

mrkm4ntr commented Jan 4, 2022

#18966 works as expected.

@subkanthi
Copy link
Contributor

checked and tested #20043

@dstandish
Copy link
Contributor

i checked off all the PRs related to the KubernetesPodOperator. installed provider and run it through test dags.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 4, 2022

Wooho. Getting quite good test coverage :) ! one more day to go !

@qgallet
Copy link
Contributor

qgallet commented Jan 4, 2022

#20553 works as expected !
#19924 and #20237 are doc fixes.

I believe #20575 can be marked as addressed on amazon and google provider since it's okay on kubernetes ;-)

@ericpp
Copy link
Contributor

ericpp commented Jan 4, 2022

#20433 is working great for me now!

@bugraoz93
Copy link
Contributor

#19377 works as expected for both cases!

@dimon222
Copy link
Contributor

dimon222 commented Jan 4, 2022

#19726 briefly tested, seems to work as intended and not raising any problems.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 5, 2022

Last chance to make some quick testing :)

@josh-fell
Copy link
Contributor

#20207, #20526, #20540, and #20347 look good!

@Bowrna
Copy link
Contributor

Bowrna commented Jan 6, 2022

#19873 verified the example DAG

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 6, 2022

Thanks everyone for helping to thest that wave. It's been released !

@potiuk potiuk closed this as completed Jan 6, 2022
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 6, 2022

Thanks everyone for helping to thest that wave. It's been released !

@ssatia
Copy link
Contributor

ssatia commented Jan 14, 2022

#20264 works as expected. We had the unexpected occur again and it was handled correctly this time around 🙌

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:meta High-level information important to the community testing status Status of testing releases
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests