mind map for Git CI/CD in the context of an Airflow ETL pipeline.

Case Study: Airflow ETL for Daily Sales Reporting

Goal: Automate the extraction, transformation, and loading of sales data from
various sources (e.g., transactional DB, CRM API) into a data warehouse, then
generate daily sales reports.
Airflow Components:
DAGs defining the ETL workflow.
Custom Python operators/hooks for specific API interactions or transformations.
Connections to databases, APIs.
Variables for configurable parameters (e.g., date ranges, API endpoints).
Potentially, custom plugins or providers.
Here's the mind map structure:
Mind Map: Git CI/CD for Airflow ETL (Daily Sales Reporting Case Study)

**1. Central Topic: Airflow ETL CI/CD**

1.1. Goal: Reliable, automated, and efficient development & deployment of
Airflow ETL pipelines.
1.2. Case Study Focus: Daily Sales Reporting ETL

**2. Git & Version Control Strategy**

2.1. Repository Structure:
2.1.1. `dags/`: Contains all DAG Python files (e.g.,
`daily_sales_report_dag.py`)
2.1.2. `plugins/`: Custom operators, hooks, sensors (e.g.,
`custom_crm_hook.py`)
2.1.3. `tests/`: Unit and integration tests
2.1.3.1. `tests/dags/`: Tests for DAG structure and integrity
2.1.3.2. `tests/operators/`: Unit tests for custom operators
2.1.3.3. `tests/integration/`: Tests for pipeline segments with mock
data
2.1.4. `requirements/`:
2.1.4.1. `requirements.txt`: Python dependencies for Airflow
workers/scheduler
2.1.4.2. `local-requirements.txt`: Dev-specific dependencies (linters,
test frameworks)
2.1.5. `config/`: Environment-specific configurations (templates,
example .env)
2.1.6. `scripts/`: Helper scripts (e.g., deployment, local dev setup)
2.1.7. `Dockerfile` (if using custom Airflow images)
2.1.8. `.gitignore`
2.1.9. `README.md`
2.2. Branching Strategy (e.g., Gitflow or GitHub Flow):
2.2.1. `main` / `master`: Production-ready code. Only receives merges from
`develop` or release branches.
2.2.2. `develop`: Integration branch for features. Staging environment
usually deploys from here.
2.2.3. `feature/<feature-name>`: For new ETL logic, DAG changes, new
operators.
2.2.4. `bugfix/<bug-name>`: For fixing bugs in existing DAGs/operators.
2.2.5. `hotfix/<issue-id>`: For urgent production fixes, branched from
`main`.
2.3. Commit Hygiene:
2.3.1. Conventional Commits (e.g., `feat: add salesforce extractor`, `fix:
correct date parsing in transform`)
2.3.2. Atomic commits (small, logical changes)
2.4. Pull Requests (PRs) / Merge Requests (MRs):
2.4.1. Mandatory for merging to `develop` and `main`.
2.4.2. Template for PR description (summary, changes, testing done).
2.4.3. Link to issue/ticket.
 2.5. Code Reviews:
2.5.1. At least one approval required.
2.5.2. Focus: Logic, efficiency, readability, test coverage, adherence to
Airflow best practices.

**3. CI (Continuous Integration) Pipeline - Triggered on Push/PR to `feature/*`,

`develop`**
3.1. Trigger:
3.1.1. Push to `feature/*`, `bugfix/*`, `hotfix/*` branches.
3.1.2. Creation/update of Pull Request targeting `develop` or `main`.
3.2. Environment Setup:
3.2.1. Checkout code.
3.2.2. Setup Python environment (e.g., using `pyenv`, virtualenv).
3.2.3. Install dependencies (`pip install -r requirements/requirements.txt
-r requirements/local-requirements.txt`).
3.3. Static Analysis & Linting:
3.3.1. Python Linters:
3.3.1.1. `flake8` (for style and syntax errors in DAGs, plugins).
3.3.1.2. `pylint` (more comprehensive checks).
3.3.2. Code Formatters:
3.3.2.1. `black` (for consistent code formatting).
3.3.2.2. `isort` (for import sorting).
3.3.3. DAG Specific Checks:
3.3.3.1. Airflow CLI: `airflow dags list-import-errors` (checks for DAG
import errors).
3.3.3.2. Custom scripts to check for common DAG anti-patterns (e.g.,
top-level code).
3.4. Unit Testing:
3.4.1. Framework: `pytest` or `unittest`.
3.4.2. Coverage: `pytest-cov` (aim for high coverage of custom operators,
hooks, transformation logic).
3.4.3. Mocking: `unittest.mock` for external dependencies (APIs, databases)
in custom operator tests.
3.4.4. Example: Test `CustomCRMExtractorOperator`'s data fetching logic
with a mocked API response.
3.5. Integration Testing (Limited Scope):
3.5.1. Test DAG structure and task dependencies: `airflow dags test
<dag_id> <execution_date>`.
3.5.2. Test small pipeline segments with sample/mocked data.
3.5.3. Example: Test a sequence of (Extract -> Transform) tasks with sample
input data and verify output.
3.6. Security Scanning (Optional but Recommended):
3.6.1. Dependency Scanning: `safety` or `snyk` to check for vulnerabilities
in `requirements.txt`.
3.6.2. Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools if handling
sensitive data.
3.7. Build Artifacts (if applicable):
3.7.1. Docker Image: If using custom Airflow images, build and tag the
image (e.g., `my-airflow-image:feature-xyz`).
3.7.1.1. Push to a container registry (e.g., Docker Hub, ECR, GCR).
3.7.2. Python Wheels: If custom plugins are complex, package them as
wheels.
3.8. Notifications:
3.8.1. Slack/Email on pipeline success/failure.
3.8.2. Report test results and coverage.

**4. CD (Continuous Delivery/Deployment) Pipeline**

4.1. Staging Environment Deployment:
4.1.1. Trigger: Successful CI build and merge to `develop` branch.
 4.1.2. Environment Provisioning/Update (if using IaC like Terraform,
CloudFormation):
4.1.2.1. Ensure Airflow infrastructure (scheduler, webserver, workers,
metadata DB) is running.
4.1.3. Configuration Management:
4.1.3.1. Set Airflow Connections & Variables for Staging (e.g., using
Airflow API, CLI, or secrets manager integration).
4.1.3.2. Example: `STAGING_CRM_API_KEY`, `STAGING_DB_CONNECTION`.
4.1.4. DAG & Plugin Deployment:
4.1.4.1. Method 1: `git-sync` sidecar in Airflow pods (Kubernetes).
4.1.4.2. Method 2: `rsync` or `scp` DAGs/plugins to Airflow DAGs
folder.
4.1.4.3. Method 3: Build new Docker image (from CI) and update Airflow
deployment (if DAGs are baked into image).
4.1.4.4. Method 4: Sync to S3/GCS, and Airflow reads DAGs from there.
4.1.5. Database Migrations (if Airflow version changes or custom metadata
tables are used).
4.1.5.1. `airflow db upgrade` (with caution, backup first).
4.1.6. Post-Deployment Smoke Tests:
4.1.6.1. Check Airflow Webserver UI is accessible.
4.1.6.2. Trigger a test run of the `daily_sales_report_dag` with sample
data or specific parameters.
4.1.6.3. Verify DAG appears in UI without import errors.
4.1.7. Notifications: Success/failure of Staging deployment.

4.2. Production Environment Deployment:

4.2.1. Trigger:
4.2.1.1. Manual approval after successful Staging validation.
4.2.1.2. Or, merge from `develop` to `main` (or creation of a release
tag).
4.2.2. Similar steps as Staging Deployment, but with Production
configurations:
4.2.2.1. Configuration Management: `PROD_CRM_API_KEY`,
`PROD_DB_CONNECTION`.
4.2.2.2. Deployment strategy: Blue/Green or Canary (if infrastructure
supports it, more complex for Airflow). Often rolling updates.
4.2.3. Critical Post-Deployment Checks:
4.2.3.1. Monitor first few runs of `daily_sales_report_dag` closely.
4.2.3.2. Check logs for errors.
4.2.3.3. Verify data integrity in the data warehouse and sales reports.
4.2.4. Rollback Plan:
4.2.4.1. Revert Git commit and redeploy previous stable version.
4.2.4.2. If using Docker images, deploy the previous image tag.
4.2.4.3. Have procedures for data cleanup/correction if a bad DAG run
corrupts data.
4.2.5. Notifications: Success/failure of Production deployment, and
critical alerts for DAG failures.

**5. Airflow Specific Considerations in CI/CD**

5.1. DAG Idempotency: Ensure DAGs and tasks can be rerun without side effects.
Crucial for recovery and testing.
5.2. Parameterization: Use Airflow Variables and Jinja templating for
environment-specific configs rather than hardcoding.
5.3. Connections & Variables Management:
5.3.1. Use Secrets Backend (HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, GCP
Secret Manager) for sensitive info.
5.3.2. Manage non-sensitive variables via Airflow UI/CLI or environment
variables.
5.3.3. Version control for *definitions* of variables/connections (e.g.,
Terraform, JSON/YAML files applied via script), not actual secrets.
5.4. Local Development Environment:
5.4.1. Docker Compose setup mirroring CI/Staging (e.g., using official
Airflow Docker image, `astro-cli`).
5.4.2. Ability to run DAGs locally.
5.5. Airflow Version Upgrades: Plan these carefully, test thoroughly in
Staging. CI/CD helps automate testing for compatibility.
5.6. Custom Provider Management: If building custom Airflow providers, version
and release them independently or with the DAGs.

**6. Tools & Infrastructure**

6.1. Version Control System: Git (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket).
6.2. CI/CD Platform: Jenkins, GitLab CI, GitHub Actions, Azure DevOps,
CircleCI.
6.3. Containerization: Docker.
6.4. Orchestration (for Airflow): Kubernetes (EKS, GKE, AKS), Docker Swarm, VMs
with systemd.
6.5. Artifact Repository: Docker Hub, AWS ECR, Google Container Registry, JFrog
Artifactory.
6.6. Secrets Management: HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault,
GCP Secret Manager.
6.7. Monitoring & Logging: Prometheus, Grafana, ELK Stack, Datadog, CloudWatch,
Sentry.
6.8. Infrastructure as Code (IaC): Terraform, Ansible, CloudFormation, Pulumi
(for Airflow infra).

**7. Key Benefits of This Approach**

7.1. Reliability: Automated testing reduces human error.
7.2. Speed: Faster feedback loops and deployment cycles.
7.3. Consistency: Standardized build and deployment processes.
7.4. Collaboration: Clear workflow for multiple developers.
7.5. Traceability: Git history tracks all changes to ETL pipelines.
7.6. Recoverability: Easier rollbacks to previous working versions.
7.7. Improved Data Quality: Through automated testing and validation.

This mind map provides a comprehensive overview. The level of detail implemented
for each point will depend on the team's size, maturity, and the complexity of the
Airflow ETL pipelines.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@
Implemented CI/CD, particularly for an Airflow ETL pipeline?"
Here's how I'd approach it:
"Certainly. In a recent project, I was heavily involved in designing and
implementing a CI/CD pipeline for our Airflow ETL workflows. The primary goal was
to improve the reliability, speed, and overall quality of our data pipeline
deployments, which were crucial for generating daily sales reports.
The Challenge (Situation):
Before we had a robust CI/CD process, deploying changes to our Airflow DAGs and
custom plugins was largely manual. Developers would push code, and then someone
would manually sync these files to the Airflow DAGs folder on the servers. This led
to several issues:
Inconsistent Testing: Testing was often an afterthought, or done manually in a
staging environment, leading to bugs slipping into production.
Deployment Errors: Manual deployments were error-prone – wrong files copied,
incorrect versions, etc.
Slow Feedback Loop: Developers wouldn't know if their DAGs had syntax errors or
import issues until they were deployed, sometimes hours later.
Lack of Confidence: There was always a bit of apprehension during production
deployments.
Our Approach & My Role (Action):
My role, along with the team, was to build out an automated pipeline. We decided to
use GitLab CI (though the principles apply to Jenkins, GitHub Actions, etc.)
integrated with our Git repository where all our Airflow code (DAGs, plugins,
tests) resided.
Here's a breakdown of what we implemented:
Version Control & Branching:
We standardized on a Gitflow-like branching strategy: main for production, develop
for integration/staging, and feature/* branches for new development.
All changes required Pull Requests (PRs) targeting develop, which mandated code
reviews.
Continuous Integration (CI) Pipeline – Triggered on PRs and merges to develop:
Linting & Static Analysis: The first stage involved running flake8 and pylint on
all Python code (DAGs, plugins) to catch syntax errors and style issues. We also
used black for auto-formatting to maintain consistency.
DAG Integrity Checks: We incorporated Airflow's own CLI command airflow dags list-
import-errors. This was crucial for quickly identifying if a new or modified DAG
would even load in Airflow due to import problems or top-level code issues.
Unit Testing: We wrote pytest unit tests for all our custom operators, hooks, and
complex transformation logic. We used unittest.mock extensively to mock external
dependencies like database connections or API calls. Our CI pipeline ran these
tests and reported code coverage.
Building Artifacts (if needed): In some cases, if we had complex plugins or
dependencies, we'd build a custom Docker image for Airflow that included these,
tagged with the commit SHA.
Continuous Delivery/Deployment (CD) Pipeline:
Staging Deployment (from develop branch):
Once CI passed and a PR was merged into develop, the CD pipeline would
automatically deploy the DAGs and plugins to our Staging Airflow environment.
For DAG deployment, we utilized git-sync running as a sidecar in our Airflow
Kubernetes pods. So, the pipeline just needed to ensure the develop branch was up-
to-date. For environments not on K8s, this stage might involve rsync or syncing to
an S3 bucket that Airflow reads from.
We also managed Airflow Connections and Variables using environment variables
injected into the Airflow pods, with secrets sourced from HashiCorp Vault.
Post-deployment smoke tests: We'd automatically trigger a few key DAGs in staging
(e.g., our daily_sales_report_dag with a specific test date) and verify their
successful completion.
Production Deployment (from main branch):
Deployment to production was a manually triggered step after successful validation
in Staging and a merge from develop to main.
The process mirrored staging: git-sync would pick up changes from the main branch,
and production-specific connections/variables were used.
We established a clear rollback plan, which usually involved reverting the Git
commit and re-triggering the deployment with the previous stable version.
The Results (Impact):
The implementation of this CI/CD pipeline had a significant positive impact:
Reduced Deployment Errors: Automation drastically cut down on manual errors during
deployment.
Faster Feedback: Developers got immediate feedback on their code quality and DAG
integrity, often within minutes of pushing code.
Increased Deployment Frequency & Confidence: We could deploy changes more
frequently and with much higher confidence. What used to be a weekly, tense
deployment became a routine, often daily, activity.
Improved Code Quality: Automated linting and mandatory unit tests led to a
noticeable improvement in the overall quality and maintainability of our ETL code.
Better Collaboration: The PR and code review process fostered better collaboration
and knowledge sharing.
Easier Onboarding: New developers could get up to speed faster as the development
and deployment process was well-defined and automated.
For our specific Daily Sales Reporting ETL, this meant more reliable data delivery,
quicker fixes if issues arose, and the ability to iterate faster on new features or
data source integrations. For instance, when we needed to add a new data source to
the sales report, the CI/CD pipeline ensured all existing functionality remained
intact and the new components were well-tested before hitting production.
Key Learnings:
One key learning was the importance of robust unit tests for custom Airflow
operators. Mocking dependencies effectively was crucial. Another was ensuring our
local development environments (often using Docker Compose with the official
Airflow image) closely mirrored the CI environment to catch issues even earlier. We
also found that DAG-specific static analysis tools, beyond basic Python linters,
were very beneficial for catching Airflow-specific anti-patterns.
This kind of detailed explanation shows I understand the problem, the solution, the
technologies involved, the impact, and the nuances of applying CI/CD to a specific
domain like Airflow ETL. I've also tried to highlight my contributions and specific
technical choices.