Move JDBC Provider to the New Structure#46269
Conversation
1954e83 to
1970921
Compare
|
Conflicts again - but this time I think 🤞 all of those flaky tests shoudl be handled. |
1970921 to
10c4702
Compare
10c4702 to
d4eec36
Compare
Thanks for checking and syncing! 🤞 |
jscheffl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CI Error seems to be in Google Operator (from main) and not from this change. I think we can merge.
Yes, I am going to check if I can fix that in another PR. First will check if anyone is already working on a fix. Thanks for your reviews! |
|
Indeed. Can't fix those quickly but if somoene could (looks like just indenting of docs in bigquery.rst) it would be great. |
|
It seems like no one is working. I will make the changes. |
related: #46045
No PR is created at this moment.
^ 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.