mihirduvedi commented on issue #70296: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/70296#issuecomment-5190052811
I'd like to take the validator-diagnostic follow-up suggested in the July 30 review sweep. On current `main`, `_check_constructor_field_logic()` still tells contributors that template-field logic should move to `execute()` without surfacing the argument-provision exception that caused several burn-down PRs to take the wrong direction. I plan to clarify value-dependent reads versus “was this argument passed?” checks (`is None` / `is not None`), link directly to the [False positives guidance](https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/70296#false-positives), and add focused regression coverage for the emitted diagnostic in `scripts/tests/ci/prek/test_validate_operators_init.py`. I will not change validator semantics, operator behavior, or the exemption list. I searched current open issues and PRs and did not find overlapping work. --- Drafted-by: Codex (GPT-5); reviewed by @mihirduvedi before posting -- 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]
