Add IBM Db2 provider with Hook

[Amitkumar293]

Description

This PR adds a new provider for IBM Db2 database support in Apache Airflow.

What: New Db2 provider package with Hook and Operator
Why: Enable Airflow users to connect to and execute queries against IBM Db2 databases

Changes

• Db2Hook: Extends DbApiHook for IBM Db2 connectivity with SSL support
• Added Db2Dialect: - Mentioned the SQLAlchemy dialect component
• Comprehensive unit tests (Tests covering all functionality)
• Documentation and example DAGs
• Provider metadata and configuration

Testing

• ✅ All unit tests passing
• ✅ Ruff linting and formatting checks passed
• ✅ Follows Airflow coding standards

---

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @Amitkumar293 · by @potiuk · 2026-07-28 16:22 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

• ❌ Pre-commit / static checks. See docs.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

See the Pull Request quality criteria for how to fix each item. There is no rush.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look. We use this two-stage triage process so maintainers' limited time goes to the conversation with you.}

[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 Contributors' Guide
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our prek-hooks 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.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  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

[jscheffl]

Note, that some fomality with announcement/DISCUSS is neede to add a new provider, following https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/providers/ACCEPTING_PROVIDERS.rst

[Amitkumar293]

Note, that some fomality with announcement/DISCUSS is neede to add a new provider, following https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/providers/ACCEPTING_PROVIDERS.rst

Thanks for pointing this out.

I’ve created a DISCUSS thread on the dev@airflow.apache.org mailing list for the new IBM Db2 provider, following the ACCEPTING_PROVIDERS.rst process.

[github-actions]

uv.lock on main just moved via #71924 ("[main] Upgrade important CI environment"), commit 4a247b9 and this PR currently conflicts.

Quickest fix:

git fetch upstream main && git rebase upstream/main
rm uv.lock && uv lock
git add uv.lock && git rebase --continue
git push --force-with-lease

Automated nudge — ignore if you're not ready to rebase. This comment is updated in place on future uv.lock bumps.

[Amitkumar293]

@jscheffl Thanks for your review, very helpful. I am working on the review comments.

[eladkal]

Was there a mailing list thread about this new provider?
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/providers/ACCEPTING_PROVIDERS.rst#examples-of-current-process

[Amitkumar293]

Thank you David.

[dabla]

Provider is looking good now, thanks for the work and changes.

I think you should start a vote now for this provider on the Apache Airflow devlist if the provider was already proposed there, if not you should start a proposal first before starting a vote.

https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org

Once the provider has been approved, then we can merge.

[Amitkumar293]

Provider is looking good now, thanks for the work and changes.

I think you should start a vote now for this provider on the Apache Airflow devlist if the provider was already proposed there, if not you should start a proposal first before starting a vote.

https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org

Once the provider has been approved, then we can merge.

Provider is looking good now, thanks for the work and changes.

I think you should start a vote now for this provider on the Apache Airflow devlist if the provider was already proposed there, if not you should start a proposal first before starting a vote.

https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org

Once the provider has been approved, then we can merge.

Hi David,
I sent the discussion email last week, but it is not appearing in the dev mailing list.

[dabla]

Provider is looking good now, thanks for the work and changes.
I think you should start a vote now for this provider on the Apache Airflow devlist if the provider was already proposed there, if not you should start a proposal first before starting a vote.
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org
Once the provider has been approved, then we can merge.

Provider is looking good now, thanks for the work and changes.
I think you should start a vote now for this provider on the Apache Airflow devlist if the provider was already proposed there, if not you should start a proposal first before starting a vote.
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org
Once the provider has been approved, then we can merge.

Hi David, I sent the discussion email last week, but it is not appearing in the dev mailing list.

Check the link here to register to the devlist:

https://airflow.apache.org/community/

Also check the static checks errors and resolve conflicts.

[dabla]

PR #67532 Review — New IBM Db2 Provider

🔴 Major

1. Db2Dialect.get_column_names() — positional predicate argument causes TypeError
providers/ibm/db2/src/airflow/providers/ibm/db2/dialects/db2.py:29–34

The author's intent is correct: always exclude autoincrement/identity columns by hardcoding the predicate. However, the base Dialect.get_target_fields() passes the predicate as a positional third argument:

self.get_column_names(
    table,
    schema,
    lambda column: not column.get("identity", False) and not column.get("autoincrement", False),
)

The override signature is (self, table, schema, **kwargs). Since **kwargs only captures keyword arguments, the positional lambda has no matching parameter and raises TypeError at runtime. The fix is to accept predicate by name and ignore it:

def get_column_names(self, table: str, schema: str | None = None, predicate=None, **kwargs) -> list[str] | None:
    return super().get_column_names(
        table, schema,
        predicate=lambda col: not col.get("autoincrement", False),
    )

2. SQL placeholder style mismatch
providers/ibm/db2/README.rst:74–91 vs hooks/db2.py:54
The hook declares qmark style (?), but the README examples use %s / %(dept)s (pyformat). Those examples won't run as-is.

3. Connection doc contradicts hook implementation
providers/ibm/db2/docs/connections/db2.rst:31–60
The doc pushes database/protocol/security into extras, but the hook reads them from named connection fields (hooks/db2.py:68–73, 87–109). This will lead to silent misconfiguration.

---

🟡 Minor

4. System test uses wrong kwarg name
tests/system/ibm/db2/example_db2.py:55, 99, 137, 166
The hook is instantiated with conn_id=... but the correct kwarg is db2_conn_id. It works only because the default ID matches; a custom ID would be silently ignored.

5. SSL config naming inconsistency
providers/ibm/db2/README.rst:59–62 vs hooks/db2.py:35–41
README documents ssl/sslcert; the hook and provider metadata use
SECURITY/SSLServerCertificate. The user-facing contract is inconsistent.

---

✅ What looks good

• License headers present on all new files
• No AirflowException raised directly
• No time.time() used for duration logic
• Commit messages follow Airflow conventions (no Conventional Commits prefixes)
• Provider scaffold is complete: hook, dialect, provider.yaml, pyproject.toml,
  connection doc, changelog, system example

---

Top priorities before merge: fix #1 (runtime crash on any upsert/insert with
target-field resolution) and #3 (misleads users into broken connections).

---

Drafted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (no human review before posting)
Reviewed by @dabla

[boring-cyborg]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request! You are invited to check our Issue Tracker for additional contributions.