Add rest API to query for providers

[nic314]

closes: #12468

Added a new api rest endpoint in the stable api to query the installed providers. It provides the same information as the cli command "airflow providers list"

Note: There is some code duplication between provider_endpoint.py and provider_command.py regarding_remove_rst_syntax and the mapping, i kept it like this becouse i assume that in future its possible that the rest api and the cli returns different informations/fields but if that's not the case and the rest and cli will always return the same information then i can refactor my pr to avoid this duplication.

[boring-cyborg]

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/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (flake8, pylint 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: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[github-actions]

The Workflow run is cancelling this PR. It has some failed jobs matching ^Pylint$,^Static checks,^Build docs$,^Spell check docs$,^Backport packages$,^Provider packages,^Checks: Helm tests$,^Test OpenAPI*.

[github-actions]

The Workflow run is cancelling this PR. It has some failed jobs matching ^Pylint$,^Static checks,^Build docs$,^Spell check docs$,^Backport packages$,^Provider packages,^Checks: Helm tests$,^Test OpenAPI*.

[potiuk]

Docs also need to be fixed.

[nic314]

@potiuk You mean the step in the CI that was failing? Or i missed to update some documentation files?
I rebased from master, now the only failure is in TestAwsBatchOperator but locally im able to reproduce the same failure on the master branch so i don't think that it's connected to this PR

[potiuk]

Yep. We just merged a fix for that AWS batch. If f you could rebase the last time (I hope) that would be great!

[github-actions]

The PR most likely needs to run full matrix of tests because it modifies parts of the core of Airflow. However, committers might decide to merge it quickly and take the risk. If they don't merge it quickly - please rebase it to the latest master at your convenience, or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

[potiuk]

I think we should refrain from merging it until we agree on how we approach 2.0.1 with branching: #13382 (comment)

[potiuk]

Looks good, but seems this is the first change to be merged that should be targeted to 2.1 so we need to decide how we approach it.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[jhtimmins]

@kaxil @ephraimbuddy This looks good to me, but can y'all confirm that this is still good to go? If so, we can merge it tomorrow.

@nic314 Sorry this has been left in limbo for so long. Would you mind rebasing it onto master?

[nic314]

@jhtimmins I rebased, but looks like the cicd needs some approval. Also i was assuming this was for the version 2.1, let me know is i need to change here c4c5a6f#diff-191056f40fba6bf5886956aa281e0e0d2bb4ddaa380beb012d922a25f5c65750R136

[ephraimbuddy]

Just the tests, LGTM overrall

[ephraimbuddy]

A while ago, we made some changes to tests speedup. I'd appreciate a change of this test to use that. See https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/b7b17641d0c17bfa5e1f8c77b9c232da73bbedcd/tests/api_connexion/endpoints/test_connection_endpoint.py

[nic314]

i will do asap, i think within today

[ephraimbuddy]

Looks good, but seems this is the first change to be merged that should be targeted to 2.1 so we need to decide how we approach it.

Hi @potiuk , is it time we merge this?

[github-actions]

The Workflow run is cancelling this PR. Building images for the PR has failed. Follow the workflow link to check the reason.

[jhtimmins]

@ephraimbuddy We can go ahead and merge, since this has targeted 2.1 and we're actively trying to get those PRs in.

[potiuk]

@ephraimbuddy We can go ahead and merge, since this has targeted 2.1 and we're actively trying to get those PRs in.

I just reverted the offending PR (and asked the author to fix also the reason why (#15703 (comment))

hey @jhtimmins - broken master happens from time to time for different reasons, so far we've been trying to fix such things (often by just pin-pointing and reverting such offending PRs'). I think we should keep doing it, Merging "quickly" something because we are in hurry is almost never a good idea.

[potiuk]

I think so far in Airflow we were doing really well about avoiding the "not my problem" attitude.

[jhtimmins]

@potiuk Thanks for the heads up about master, I missed that it was failing.

As I understood it, Ephraim was asking whether we actually wanted this to be included for 2.1. As I'm in the middle of working on the 2.1 release, and am currently making a list of what will get into the release versus pushed to a later one, I was confirming that this feature should be included. Since the release date is approaching, I was encouraging him to be proactive about getting it fully reviewed and merged, not to cut any corners in quality or good practices.

[potiuk]

@potiuk Thanks for the heads up about master, I missed that it was failing.

As I understood it, Ephraim was asking whether we actually wanted this to be included for 2.1. As I'm in the middle of working on the 2.1 release, and am currently making a list of what will get into the release versus pushed to a later one, I was confirming that this feature should be included. Since the release date is approaching, I was encouraging him to be proactive about getting it fully reviewed and merged, not to cut any corners in quality or good practices.

Sorry then :). I misunderstood that - It looked as if we are hurrying now for unknown reason :).

[potiuk]

Hey @nic314 - can you please rebase. I am also happy to merge it as soon as it is green!

[potiuk]

Looks great! Thanks @nic314 . Let's hope all tests pass this time :).

[github-actions]

The PR most likely needs to run full matrix of tests because it modifies parts of the core of Airflow. However, committers might decide to merge it quickly and take the risk. If they don't merge it quickly - please rebase it to the latest master at your convenience, or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

[nic314]

looks like everything passed👍

[boring-cyborg]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request!

[potiuk]

Wohoo 🎉 !