airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Uellendall <felue...@pm.me.INVALID>
Subject Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?
Date Wed, 03 Jul 2019 20:28:32 GMT
Definitly +1 for removing this whatever this is supposed to mean :D

-feluelle
-------- Original Message --------
On Jul 3, 2019, 20:03, Driesprong, Fokko wrote:

> I think this is very awkward, +1 on removing
>
> Op wo 3 jul. [2019](tel:2019) om 19:57 schreef Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com
>>:
>
>> This is very confusing.
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel: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](tel:2019),
18:38:
>> >
>> > > I am not aware of this feature either. And +1 on removing it.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel: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](tel: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](tel: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](tel: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](tel: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