Refactor: Simplify code in models#33181
Conversation
|
@wumiro - I suggest to not create those as draft unless you know it's not ready for review. Most of us will not even look at PRs that are in Draft state. Those changes look like ready for review (but because they are |
|
@potiuk I put them in draft first to make sure all checks pass here as well. Only then I switch them to ready, so you won't accidentally get noticed by something that I have to fix first. Thought this was the best way to go. |
|
It's ok to have failing tests on "ready to review" PR. We have pretty asynchronous process of reviews and it is triggererd by various events, and you want to maximise the chance someone will have time to look at your PR - sometimes even before you fix all the issues there. Failing tests on such prs also help the reviewer to see potential problems, and give the chance of reviewing them while you are also fixing them :) Besides - you can always run the tests locally- using local venv or Breeze. There is no particular reason to use CI to check if tests are passing. Our system is generally prepared for the contributor to run the tests locally and fix them before submiting the PRs. Especially in your case, it's worth to spend (literally) 10 minutes in setting up the All described here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTORS_QUICK_START.rst There are two ways:
Using This is more heavy (requires docker and docker-compose) but it replicates exactly what CI does with all the dependencies and configurations so you can be almost 100% sure what passes there, passes on CI.
All details on setting up Breeze in https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/BREEZE.rst With the number of changes and PRs you have - investing in setting it up will give you a lot of saved time on waiting for CI. |
(cherry picked from commit 5a0494f)
|
Thank you, @potiuk. Set |
|
Cool. |
No description provided.