airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxime Beauchemin <maximebeauche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?
Date Wed, 03 Jul 2019 18:02:25 GMT
+1

To me the preferred method is to use the context manager (`with DAG(...) as
dag:`). We should make sure all examples align with that method if that's
not the case already.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:57 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
wrote:

> This is very confusing.
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:20 PM Christian Lellmann
> <christian.lellmann@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Me neither. Also from me +1 (non-binding) on removal.
> >
> > Tao Feng <fengtao04@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 3. Juli 2019, 18:38:
> >
> > > I am not aware of this feature either. And +1 on removing it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:36 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am definitely sure that 99% of users, including me, didn't knew
> this
> > > > feature ever existed 😀.
> > > >
> > > > It is not a feature worth having tbh. So I am in favor of removing
> it.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Kaxil
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 18:37 James Meickle <jmeickle@quantopian.com
> > > .invalid>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I didn't even know this was a feature. Seems like it's
> unnecessarily
> > > > > ambiguous, since you can't tell at a glance whether a variable is
a
> > dag
> > > > or
> > > > > a task. Definitely in favor of removal.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:49 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm just suggesting removing the `dag >> task` -- `task
>> task`
> > will
> > > > > stay
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3 Jul 2019, at 13:46, Philippe Gagnon <
> philgagnon1@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just to be clear, are you suggesting removing all bitshift
> > operator
> > > > > > > overloads from airflow operators (sorry - the dual meaning
of
> > > > operator
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > is confusing), or just the assignment to DAG behavior?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's the former, I find it to be a particularly expressive
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > > dependencies between tasks so I would vote to keep it as
is.
> The
> > > > latter
> > > > > > > usage is much less useful, so I would be +1 on removing
it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:42 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> ash@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> It is possible to assign a task to the dag using the
bitshift
> > > > > operators,
> > > > > > >> however it doesn't pick up default_args when done this
way <
> > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-883>:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ```
> > > > > > >> dag = DAG('my_dag', default_args=default_args)
> > > > > > >> dummy = DummyOperator(task_id='dummy')
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> dag >> dummy
> > > > > > >> ```
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> We could fix that, but how about instead we remove
this way of
> > > > > assigning
> > > > > > >> tasks to dags, leaving the context manager (`with dag:`)
and
> > other
> > > > > > >> constructions (`Operator(..., dag=dag)`)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message