Conversation
|
Needs also to be removed from the docs |
|
I am unsure what to do with |
This is actually why I gave up removing the experimental API last Friday 🙃. I think we should remove the whole concept of a client and let AIP-81 handle reimagining it. |
Does that mean that the current CI is using experimental API underneath? |
No. It should not - we should just remove those IMHO. Full stop. There is no particular reason we should keep them |
Honestly, I didn't look closely at all once I saw the dependency. I'm not sure if those clients are even usable? I'm with Jarek, whack them. |
|
These clients are used by the CI today so I wont be able to remove them entirely in this PR. I think this should be done as part of the AIP-81 effort. I'll do my best to remove as much as I can though |
|
I posted #41491 to fix the news fragment check. |
Thank you! |
|
Tests are passing (besides flaky tests I'll restart) 🎉 |
I ended up deleting the client interface and configs associated to it. I had to keep the basic client implementation because it is used by the CI. It will be most likely be deleted/refactored in AIP-81 work |
|
The test |
|
From logs: |
|
Fix for this test in #41534 |
|
All green :) Any additional reviews? |
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.