Conversation
Both suspended-provider filters in the check cross-multiply their inputs, so an entry survives whenever it fails to match any single suspended provider. The check has only ever run with zero or one suspended provider, where that reading is accidentally correct, so suspending a second one would fail the check on the suspended providers' own documentation and report unrelated errors once per suspended provider.
0ffc7f2 to
703b3dc
Compare
|
Hello @rjgoyln - thank you for your contributions to Apache Airflow! The Airflow community has introduced a limit of 5 open pull requests at a time for contributors without write access to the repository. You currently have 24 open pull requests, so - as a one-time step of introducing the limit - we closed the ones where maintainers have not engaged yet:
These pull requests stay open because maintainers are already engaged in them - they count towards your limit:
This is not a judgement of you or of your changes. We never told contributors before that opening many pull requests at once was a problem, so there is nothing to feel bad about - and nothing is lost: your branches, commits and the review history stay where they are. What we ask you to do is to make your first prioritization decision: choose which of the pull requests above matter most to you, and reopen them (up to 5 open at a time, including the ones still open) with the "Reopen pull request" button or While your pull requests are waiting for review, the most valuable thing you can do is help in other ways - reviewing other contributors' pull requests, helping with issues, and taking part in the discussions on the devlist and Slack. Why we introduced the limit, what it means for you and how to reopen or restore a pull request is explained in https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/32_open_pull_request_limit.rst. Drafted-by: Claude Code (Opus 5); reviewed by @potiuk before posting |
Summary
Both suspended-provider filters in the
provider.yamlcheck use nestedforcomprehensions. As a result, an entry is kept when any suspended provider fails to match it, rather than only when none of them match.When two providers are suspended, each provider's doc URLs survive the filter because the other suspended provider is not present in those URLs. The check then reports those URLs as missing from
provider.yaml, causing it to fail on documentation that should have been ignored.The error filter has the same issue and additionally duplicates unrelated errors once per suspended provider.
The cross-product behavior happens to work with a single suspended provider, which is the only configuration the check has previously encountered. With no suspended providers, the nested comprehensions instead produce an empty set/list, which is why the existing guards were needed.
Change
scripts/in_container/provider_suspension.pyso they can be tested independently.The filters are moved because the check script cannot be imported as a module. Behavior for a single suspended provider remains unchanged.
Compatibility
Matching remains substring-based, preserving the existing behavior. For example, suspending
apache-airflow-providers-gitalso stripsapache-airflow-providers-githubdocs, as it does today.Narrowing the match to the
/docs/<package-name>/prefix would change the existing matching semantics and is therefore left as a separate change.Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5) following the guidelines