potiuk commented on PR #23335: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/23335#issuecomment-1112590254
> What is the rationale behind making timeout values be single digit seconds? In case 3) - we want to gently nudge the user to run an action when we guess it is advised. We should not break the regular workflows, but we want the user to "eventually" run the upgrade to use the same environment as others (and avoiding the problem where thing "work for me but not the others". > For somebody who knows a priori what the questions are going to be and the implications of their answers are, they can probably predict or at least quickly recognize what the text is saying and respond that quickly. But for anybody who needs extra time to read things (hint: people with reading difficulties and/or disabilities), for newbies who need to read and make a decision, or for people who just like to read what their computer is saying to them (which is a practice that we should support!), single digit timeouts are far too short, in an extreme way. This is fine. There is nothing wrong if they don't answer. This is expected and good outcome if they don't react. That's also desired in most cases. But it's also desired to be "slightlly annoying" and a) when they see it multiple times they will answer it 'y' eventually when they have time. This is precisely the behaviour I want to promote. > I'm not a fan of timeouts, period. If something is important enough to display to the user and request the user's input on, it's important enough to require the user's input. Otherwise we should just emit a warning and carry on. Nope. This is not binary. There is also "eventual consistency". Things are "the same", "differnt" and "eventually consistent" (i.e. wait or repeat enought time and you transition from "no" to "yes"). > But on top of that, forcing default answers if the user doesn't answer within a timeout is also something that should not be standard practice, and should not be commonly done. Asking the user for input, and then ignoring their lack of input is tantamount to just guessing at their intent. And the Zen of Python has something to say about that: ["In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."](https://peps.python.org/pep-0020/) I think in this case it makes perfect sense. We did not have timeouts and it was extremely annoying. I don't see ambiguity. There is no ambiguity here. The message is simple "You can upgrade but if you don't decide, we will skip it" . The updated message is very clear about it now. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
