jedcunningham commented on code in PR #52860:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52860#discussion_r2246187755
##########
airflow-core/newsfragments/52860.significant.rst:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Replace API server ``access_logfile`` configuration with ``log_config``
+
+The API server configuration option ``[api] access_logfile`` has been replaced
with ``[api] log_config`` to align with uvicorn's logging configuration instead
of the legacy gunicorn approach.
+The new ``log_config`` option accepts a path to a logging configuration file
compatible with ``logging.config.fileConfig``, providing more flexible logging
configuration for the API server.
Review Comment:
Is there a way we can continue to support a simple access logfile config? I
just worry a bit about backcompat, right now this is a breaking change. Maybe
we leave `access_logfile`, build our own `log_config` file dynamically, and
make `log_config` and `access_logfile` mutually exclusive? And we should emit a
deprecation warning when `access_logfile` is used.
##########
airflow-core/src/airflow/configuration.py:
##########
@@ -373,6 +373,7 @@ def sensitive_config_values(self) -> set[tuple[str, str]]:
("api", "require_confirmation_dag_change"): ("webserver",
"require_confirmation_dag_change", "3.1.0"),
("api", "instance_name"): ("webserver", "instance_name", "3.1.0"),
("dag_processor", "parsing_pre_import_modules"): ("scheduler",
"parsing_pre_import_modules", "3.1.0"),
+ ("api", "log_config"): ("api", "access_logfile", "3.1.0"),
Review Comment:
This is not safe to do - they are different config options. As mentioned in
the comment above, this will use the old `access_logfile` value for
`log_config` if it's set, which isn't what we want.
--
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]
