vatsrahul1001 opened a new issue, #46513: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/46513
### Apache Airflow version 3.0.0a1 ### If "Other Airflow 2 version" selected, which one? _No response_ ### What happened? I see the below issue while reading Xcom 1. `ti.xcom_pull(key=key)` used to work without task_id in AF2, however failing in AF3 **AF2** <img width="1353" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9dc08a59-3b83-4bbf-a71c-c3b5c779f025"; /> **AF3** <img width="1462" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d7ea1fdd-5b07-4ac8-87d3-63fa728def86"; /> 1. xcom values are showing in "" **AF3**  **AF2** <img width="1048" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3e764713-2d9b-4d72-b6f5-719ecde95ef0"; /> ### What you think should happen instead? There is be no deviations in retriving xcom from AF2 ### How to reproduce 1. Execute below DAG 2. Verify Xcom values are with qoutes. 3. `val = ti.xcom_pull(key=key)` in **wait_pull** method was able to get the xcom value with only using key, however, in AF3 is not able to see . See xcom value of seperate.y task ``` from airflow.decorators import dag, task, task_group from airflow.models.baseoperator import chain, cross_downstream from time import sleep from pendulum import today def wait_pull(**kwargs): ti = kwargs["ti"] key = ti.task_id.split(".")[-2] val = None while val is None: val = ti.xcom_pull(key=key) if not val: print("not yet") sleep(5) print(f"got {val}") return val def push(val, **kwargs): ti = kwargs["ti"] key = ti.task_id.split(".")[-2] ti.xcom_push(key=key, value=val) @task def x(**kwargs): push("X", **kwargs) return "x" @task def y(a, **kwargs): b = wait_pull(**kwargs) push(f"{b}Y", **kwargs) return f"{a}y" @task def z(a, **kwargs): b = wait_pull(**kwargs) push(f"{b}Z", **kwargs) return f"{a}z" @task def get(**kwargs): return wait_pull(**kwargs) @task def cat(a, b): if not a: return b if not b: return a return a + b @task def assert_one_of(to): @task def approved(val): print(val) assert int(val) in to return approved @task_group() def separate(): a = x() y(a) c = z(a) d = get() return cat(c, d) @task_group() def chained_one_way(): a = x() b = y(a) c = z(a) d = get() chain(a, b, c, d) return cat(c, d) @task_group() def chained_another_way(): a = x() b = y(a) c = z(a) d = get() b >> d # to remove race condition chain(a, c, b, d) return cat(c, d) @task_group() def crossed_one_way(): a = x() b = y(a) c = z(a) d = get() c >> d # to remove race condition cross_downstream([a, b], [c, d]) return cat(c, d) @task_group() def crossed_another_way(): a = x() b = y(a) c = z(a) d = get() cross_downstream([a, c], [b, d]) return cat(c, d) @task def assert_equal(a, b): print(f"{a} == {b}") assert a == b @dag( schedule=None, start_date=today('UTC').add(days=-1), default_args={"owner": "airflow"}, max_active_runs=1, catchup=False, tags=["core"], ) def cross_chain_structure_hash(): """ The patterns below aren't supposed to be meaningful, it's enough that a change in the underlying functionality will fail this test and attract human attention. """ assert_equal("xzX", separate()) assert_equal("xzXYZ", chained_one_way()) assert_equal("xzXZY", chained_another_way()) assert_equal("xzXYZ", crossed_one_way()) assert_equal("xzXZ", crossed_another_way()) the_dag = cross_chain_structure_hash() ``` ### Operating System Linux ### Versions of Apache Airflow Providers _No response_ ### Deployment Other ### Deployment details _No response_ ### Anything else? _No response_ ### Are you willing to submit PR? - [ ] Yes I am willing to submit a PR! ### Code of Conduct - [x] I agree to follow this project's [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
