Fix KubernetesHook failed on an attribute metadata:name absence

[morooshka]

closes: #25668 related: #25668

[boring-cyborg[bot]]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst) Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (flake8, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style. Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀. In case of doubts contact the developers at: Mailing List: [email protected] Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[potiuk]

There are errors to fix.

[morooshka]

There are errors to fix.

@potiuk thank you for your message. I see some tests failing, but I consider these are not connected with my changes. How can I resolve the case? I have made several rebases on apache/main and the number of falling tests changes from iteration to iteration. What is the best practice with this? Thank you

UPD: This is my fault, I should be more attentive. I'll fix it

[morooshka]

@potiuk The problem had gone. I was so mind fixed that it is not connected with my changes that I really missed a piece of code deleted by occasion. Thank you, you forced me to recheck

[potiuk]

@potiuk The problem had gone. I was so mind fixed that it is not connected with my changes that I really missed a piece of code deleted by occasion. Thank you, you forced me to recheck

:D -> yeah complexity of our CI leads it to some false negatives that might cloud the understanding which changes are causing which problems. Actually - we have a main failure currently that needs to be fixed that WILL likely fail in your PR so brace for it.

I wish we had the situaton that we have super-stable and solid CI where we have 100% certaintty about the root cause of the problem but this is IMHO very nice goal to have but very unrealistic to achieve in practice for any system which has sizeable complexity. It's pretty much always a moving target and we need to accept it as a fact of life (and strive to improve it continuousy without the false hopes we will ever achieve it "for ever". There are brief periods where it might work and the most we can achieve is to make those periods longere and more "stable".

[morooshka]

@potiuk Sure, I understand the mission =)

[potiuk]

And now. -you have some conflicts to solve and rebase, look at the Helm isssues and see if those are your problems and fix them if nedeed.

[morooshka]

And now. -you have some conflicts to solve and rebase, look at the Helm isssues and see if those are your problems and fix them if nedeed.

Hi Jarek! Fixed. Some CI pipes were skipped, I have reported to Slack. I do not understand why and do not understand how to get the reason. However, the checks were successful 😁

[potiuk]

Let's see. we skip some unnneded checks (based on what your change brings) but I also have to approve the rest of your workflow because you are "new' user.

[potiuk]

So some checks will still run

[morooshka]

Let's see. we skip some unnneded checks (based on what your change brings) but I also have to approve the rest of your workflow because you are "new' user.

The skipped checks we reported as failed by email to me:

[potiuk]

Let's see. we skip some unnneded checks (based on what your change brings) but I also have to approve the rest of your workflow because you are "new' user.

The skipped checks we reported as failed by email to me:

Those are likely tests that are run in your fork "main" after synchronizing the changes. You should likely disable the workflows in your own fork.

[potiuk]

All our tests for PRs from fork run in Airflow repo's GitHub Actions

[morooshka]

So some checks will still run

Hi Jarek! Finally all checks succeeded. Do I need to rebase again? The main head had gone away again =)

[potiuk]

No. It's ok. But I think @jedcunningham aand @dstandish / @ephraimbuddy shoudl take a look at it :)

[morooshka]

Hi @potiuk! How can we go further?

[potiuk]

Start with resolving conflicts and ask here for merging. I am going for holidays now, so won't be able to merge it, but others might.

[dstandish]

i hesitated suggesting reverting your unrelated changes cus i didn't want to be too nitpicky but after looking again, i do think it's best to revert those changes if you wouldn't mind since you're going to be rebasing anyway.

[dstandish]

just need to resolve conflicts here

[potiuk]

This one needs rebase/conflict resolution after applying string normalization (See slack and devlist for information). Ths might be good opportunity to remove the unrelated changes and move them to separate PR if needed.

[morooshka]

I followed all the recommendations above and made corrections

[potiuk]

I thinkn you need to solve conflicts now :( @eladkal Are you ok ?

[morooshka]

@potiuk @eladkal conflicts resolved, it is being builded. In the previous try I have done the same but the main branch had succeeded to go further

[boring-cyborg[bot]]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request!

[morooshka]

@potiuk @dstandish @eladkal thank you for your help and mentoring! Hope to continue contributing