uranusjr commented on PR #68749: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/68749#issuecomment-4847347073
I actually think we can just use catchup because 1. If we introduce a new argument for asset-triggered dags, the argument would not be useful for time-scheduled dags. Conversely, `catchup` would not make sense for asset-triggered dags. This seems wasteful when `catchup` adequately describes the behavior we want for asset-triggering. 2. I do not think the current behavior (basically unconditionally setting catchup=True for all asset-triggered dags) is useful for anyone for compatibility to be a requirement. Making this configurable with the catchup argument can arguably be considered a bug-fix. Since catchup only matters for a dag newly introduced to the scheduler, effects on existing dags is minimal. The only case this can cause breakage is if a dag with catchup=False is currently paused, and then unpaused after upgrade—this would make the dag ignore the asset events during the paused period. But this is arguably the correct behavior anyway. -- 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]
