Re: Pinning dependencies for Apache Airflow
Oh good to know! Scrap what I wrote then.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:08 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> echo 'pandas==2.1.3' > constraints.txt
> pip install -c constraints.txt apache-airflow[pandas]
> That will ignore what ever we specify in setup.py and use 2.1.3.
> (sorry for the brief message)
> > On 19 Oct 2018, at 17:02, Maxime Beauchemin <maximebeauchemin@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> releases in pip should have stable (pinned deps)
> > I think that's an issue. When setup.py (the only reqs that setuptools/pip
> > knows about) is restrictive, there's no way to change that in your
> > environment, install will just fail if you deviate (are there any
> > hacks/solutions around that that I don't know about???). For example if
> > want a specific version of pandas in your env, and Airflow's setup.py has
> > another version of pandas pinned, you're out of luck. I think the only
> > is to fork and make you own build at that point as you cannot alter
> > setup.py once it's installed. On the other hand, when a version range is
> > specified in setup.py, you're free to pin using your own reqs.txt within
> > the specified version range.
> > I think pinning in setup.py is just not viable. setup.py should have
> > version ranges based semantic versioning expectations. (lib>=1.1.2,
> > <2.0.0). Personally I think we should always have 2 bounds based on
> > 1-semantic versioning major release, or 2- a lower version than
> > by semver that we know breaks backwards compatibility features we
> > I think we have consensus around something like pip-tools to generate a
> > "deterministic" `requirements.txt`. A caveat is we may need 2:
> > requirements.txt and requirements3.txt for Python 3 as some package
> > versions can be flagged as only py2 or only py3.
> > Max
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:47 AM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> I think i might have a proposal that could be acceptable by everyone in
> >> discussion (hopefully :) ). Let me summarise what I am leaning towards
> >> now:
> >> I think we can have a solution where it will be relatively easy to keep
> >> both "open" and "fixed" requirements (open in setup.py, fixed in
> >> requirements.txt). Possibly we can use pip-tools or poetry (including
> >> of the poetry-setup <https://github.com/orsinium/poetry-setup> which
> >> to be able to generate setup.py/constraints.txt/requirements.txt from
> >> poetry setup). Poetry is still "new" so it might not work, then we can
> >> to get similar approach with pip-tools or our own custom solution. Here
> >> the basic assumptions:
> >> - we can leave master with "open" requirements which makes it
> >> potentially unstable with potential conflicting dependencies. We will
> >> also
> >> document how to generate stable set of requirements (hopefully
> >> automatically) and a way how to install from master using those. *This
> >> addresses needs of people using master for active development with
> >> latest
> >> libraries.*
> >> - releases in pip should have stable (pinned deps). Upgrading pinned
> >> releases to latest "working" stable set should be part of the release
> >> process (possibly automated with poetry). We can try it out and decide
> >> if
> >> we want to pin only direct dependencies or also the transitive ones (I
> >> think including transitive dependencies is a bit more stable). *This
> >> we keep long-term "install-ability" of releases and make job of
> >> maintainer easier*.
> >> - CI builds will use the stable dependencies from requirements.txt.
> >> *This
> >> way we keep CI from dependency-triggered failures.*
> >> - we add documentation on how to use pip --constraints mechanism by
> >> anyone who would like to use airflow from PIP rather than sources, but
> >> would like also to use other (up- or down- graded) versions of
> >> dependencies. *This way we let active developers to work with airflow
> >> and more recent/or older releases.*
> >> If we can have general consensus that we should try it, I might try to
> >> some time next week to do some "real work". Rather than implement it and
> >> make a pull request immediately, I think of a Proof Of Concept branch
> >> showing how it would work (with some artificial going back to older
> >> versions of requirements). I thought about pre-flaskappbuilder upgrade
> >> one commit and update to post-flaskappbuilder upgrade in second,
> >> the steps I've done to get to it. That would be much better for the
> >> community to discuss if that's the right approach.
> >> Does it sound good ?
> >> J.
> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:21 AM Daniel (Daniel Lamblin) [BDP - Seoul] <
> >> lamblin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/18, 12:24 AM, "William Pursell" <williamp@xxxxxxxxx.INVALID>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> I'm jumping in a bit late here, and perhaps have missed some of the
> >>> discussion, but I haven't seen any mention of the fact that pinning
> >>> versions in setup.py isn't going to solve the problem. Perhaps it's
> >>> my lack of experience with pip, but currently pip doesn't provide
> >>> guarantee that the version of a dependency specified in setup.py
> >>> be the version that winds up being installed. Is this a known issue
> >>> that is being intentionally ignored because it's hard (and out of
> >>> scope) to solve? I agree that versions should be pinned in setup.py
> >>> for stable releases, but I think we need to be aware that this won't
> >>> solve the problem.
> >>> So the problem is going to be stubborn for the rare user not installing
> >>> into a clean venv, vm, or docker image, or who is not relying on pypi
> >>> host the dependencies unmodified.
> >>> https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/user_guide/#pinned-version-numbers
> >>> That doesn't mean it doesn't fix it for the vast majority of users who
> >> are
> >>> trying to install a particular supported stable release. Given that
> >> 1.10.0
> >>> is the absolute very latest release, it should be supported.
> >>> Shouldn’t there be an expectation that installing on a clean system
> >> a
> >>> supported stable branch will create a stable installation that can run
> >> the
> >>> release?
> >> --
> >> *Jarek Potiuk, Principal Software Engineer*
> >> Mobile: +48 660 796 129