Better diagnosis when skipping packages when generating back references #50714
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When you generate back-references, and skip missing directories the mesage was not very corect/useful - it mentioned provider but it could be any package (apache-airflow for exanple) and it did not show the missing path - which made it difficult to diagnose things. It also mentioned that the provider is not released (which was not realy this - it was about package dir missing). This PR fixes those issues.
potiuk
requested review from
ashb,
jedcunningham,
gopidesupavan and
amoghrajesh
as code owners
gopidesupavan
approved these changes
May 16, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When you generate back-references, and skip missing directories the mesage was not very corect/useful - it mentioned provider but it could be any package (apache-airflow for exanple) and it did not show the missing path - which made it difficult to diagnose things. It also mentioned that the provider is not released (which was not realy this - it was about package dir missing).
This PR fixes those issues.
^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.