I agree with Max here, we should be careful.
Regarding the yesterday_ds, yesterday_ds_nodash, tomorrow_ds,
tomorrow_ds_nodash. I'm not against having better readable shorthands, but
more about the fact that having a tomorrow_ds doesn't make sense when we
have an hourly (or weekly) job.
I'm against guarding the {in,out}lets. Since the guarding will add extra
logic, and this is not worth the added complexity (and another flag) in my
opinion.
- We start by putting deprecation warnings on tables, latest_date, end_date
and END_DATE and remove them in Airflow 2.0.
This is only possible if there is another version before 2.0. Currently,
we're preparing to move to 2.0
- We add a lineage_enabled config which is false by default and thus
inlets/outlets aren’t provided, unless set to true.
I'm against guarding the {in,out}lets. Since the guarding will add extra
logic, and this is not worth the added complexity (and another flag) in my
opinion.
- We continue discussion about clarification of execution_date and better
named variables such as something_start and something_end
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/31423aa7feba421c53356a1e566f777c7a7973966c3320611286a2fb@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
Cheers, Fokko
Op do 11 apr. 2019 om 08:44 schreef Bas Harenslak <
basharens...@godatadriven.com>:
> Great discussion, let’s stay on track. If I can summarise:
>
>
> * yesterday_ds, yesterday_ds_nodash, tomorrow_ds, tomorrow_ds_nodash
> * Arthur: some users use these for convenience
> * Bas/Fokko: these are values that can be easily derived in a
> one-liner
>
> * tables
> * nobody?
>
> * latest_date
> * Arthur: used by internal backfill framework at Airbnb, but no
> issue removing them.
>
> * inlets/outlets
> * Arthur: still in development, could be guarded behind feature
> flag.
>
> * end_date/END_DATE
> * Arthur: used by internal backfill framework at Airbnb, but no
> issue removing them.
>
> And to add to the discussion:
>
>
> * execution_date
> * The meaning of execution_date is ambivalent and super confusing
> to everybody because it’s not the date of execution.
> * Suggestions to add period_start/period_end, or
> interval_start/interval_end, or something like that, to provide datetime
> variables for start & end datetime of a DAG run.
> * Other:
> * Removal of variables should be done in major version and
> deprecation warnings should be added.
>
> So how about the following:
> - We start by putting deprecation warnings on tables, latest_date,
> end_date and END_DATE and remove them in Airflow 2.0.
> - We add a lineage_enabled config which is false by default and thus
> inlets/outlets aren’t provided, unless set to true.
> - We continue discussion about yesterday* and tomorrow*
> - We continue discussion about clarification of execution_date and better
> named variables such as something_start and something_end
>
> Cheers,
> Bas
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2019, at 04:52, Maxime Beauchemin <maximebeauche...@gmail.com
> <mailto:maximebeauche...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Making backwards incompatible changes that require altering the thousands
> (millions?!) of DAGs in the wild will alienate the community and prevent
> many from orchestrating an upgrade. Upgrading hundreds of DAGs and Airflow
> atomically would be hard and dangerous.
>
> To mitigate this, changes to the DAG / core API should be backward
> compatible, at least for a release range, and alert on upcoming deprecation
> (if needed)
>
> To be clear if `execution_date` is renamed to `foo`, we should have a
> version range where both work just as well, but using `execution_date`
> would result is warning messages about its upcoming deprecation, maybe
> something like "It appears you're using the task parameter `execution_date`
> which will be deprecated in favor or `foo` in upcoming release 2.0.0, find
> more info at link.to/foo<http://link.to/foo>"
>
> Max
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:58 AM James Meickle
> <jmeic...@quantopian.com.invalid<mailto:jmeic...@quantopian.com.invalid>>
> wrote:
>
> I agree with Ash here. The naming of "execution_date" is incredibly
> confusing to people who are new to Airflow, who think it has something to
> do with... execution.
>
> However, I think that there's still room for improvement with
> "period_start" and "period_end". Think about manually triggered tasks -
> they'd have a "period_start", but no useful "period_end" until the next
> trigger occurs. And mid-day ETL tasks that are dated to "today" still have
> to reference "period_end" to get the correct date, even though the DAGrun
> won't be over yet!
>
> If we're going to go through and rename "execution_date", I'd rather see a
> wider-ranging rework that understands a mapping from a date to a window
> (like "every day, process the data from one week ago", or "every Saturday,
> process today's data"). Maybe something closer to how Beam does it
> (but retaining simplicity for the 99% of cases that are just "run daily,
> for the past day").
>
>
> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/programming-guide/#provided-windowing-functions
>
> I could see something where there are two default DAG parameters are:
> schedule="@daily"
> window=-1 (or some schedule_delta object that provides a windowing impl, or
> None if there is no window)
>
> In this world, all DAGRuns would have a "schedule_date" (the date this
> would have normally started at), and an "execution_date" (when it was
> actually executed). If a given DAGrun has a window (one-off DAGs may or may
> not!), there would be variables for "window_start" (the start of the
> window) and "window_end" (the end of the window; this would default to the
> same as schedule_date, and to the next DAGrun's window_start).
>
> Disconnecting schedule date, execution date, and window/period would also
> open a pathway for more advanced users to implement irregular schedules and
> windows, without having to rely on hacks. For example: a DAG that runs at
> "the end of the week" to produce a end-of-week would normally run on
> Friday, but on Friday holidays, instead complete a day early (and scan one
> fewer day in its window).
>
> I know there's some historical baggage here, but I think the above is much
> more natural to new users than what we're offering today. And I think from
> a current user perspective, there would be breaking variable name changes,
> but no logical differences for the majority of DAGs.
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:17 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> To (slightly) hijack this thread:
>
> On the subject of execuction_date: as I'm sure we're all aware the
> concept
> of execution_date is confusing to new-commers to Airflow (there are many
> questions about "why hasn't my DAG run yet"? "Why is my dag a day
> behind?"
> etc.) and although we mention this in the docs it's a confusing concept.
>
> What to people think about adding two new parameters: `period_start` and
> `period_end` and making these the preferred terms in place of
> execution_date and next_execution_date?
>
> This hopefully avoids any ambitious terms like "execution" or "run" which
> is understandably easy to conflate with the time the task is being run
> (i.e. `now()`)
>
> If people think this naming is better and less confusing I would suggest
> we update all the docs and examples to use these terms (but still mention
> the old names somewhere, probably in the macros docs)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -ash
>
>
> On 8 Apr 2019, at 16:20, Arthur Wiedmer <arthur.wied...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bas,
>
> 1) I am aware of a few places where those parameters are used in
> production
> in a few hundred jobs. I highly recommend we don't deprecate them
> unless
> we
> do it in a major version.
>
> 2) As James mentioned, inlets and outlets are a lineage annotation
> feature
> which is still under development. Let's leave them in, but we can guard
> them behind a feature flag if you prefer.
>
> 3) the yesterday*/tomorrow* params are convenience ones if you use a
> daily
> ETL. I agree with you that they are simple to compute, but not everyone
> using Apache Airflow is amazing with Python. Some users are only trying
> to
> get a query scheduled and rely on a couple of niceties like these to
> get
> by.
>
> 4) latest_date, end_date (I feel like there used to be start_date, but
> maybe it got lost) were a blend of things which were used by a backfill
> framework used internally at Airbnb. Latest date was used if you needed
> to
> join to a dimension for which you only wanted the latest version of the
> attributes in you backfill. end_date was used for time ranges where
> several
> days were processed together in a range to save on compute. I don't see
> an
> issue with removing them.
>
> Best regards,
> Arthur
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:37 AM Bas Harenslak <
> basharens...@godatadriven.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Following Tao Feng’s question to discuss this PR<
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5010> (AIRFLOW-4192<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4192>), please discuss
> here
> if you agree/disagree/would change.
>
> -----------
>
> The summary of the PR:
>
> I was confused by the task context values and suggest to clean up and
> clarify these variables. Some are derivations from other variables,
> some
> are undocumented and unused, some are wrong (name doesn’t match the
> value).
> Please discuss what you think of the removal of these variables:
>
>
> * Removed yesterday_ds, yesterday_ds_nodash, tomorrow_ds,
> tomorrow_ds_nodash. IMO the next_* and previous_* variables are useful
> since these require complex logic to compute the next execution date,
> however would leave computing the yesterday* and tomorrow* variables
> up
> to
> the user since they are simple one-liners and don't relate to the DAG
> interval.
> * Removed tables. This is a field in params, and is thus also
> accessible by the user ({{ params.tables }}). Also, it was
> undocumented.
> * Removed latest_date. It's the same as ds and was also
> undocumented.
> * Removed inlets and outlets. Also undocumented, and have the
> inlets/outlets ever worked/ever been used by anybody?
> * Removed end_date and END_DATE. Both have the same value, so it
> doesn't make sense to have both variables. Also, the value is ds which
> contains the start date of the interval, so the naming didn't make
> sense to
> me. However, if anybody argues in favour of adding "start_date" and
> "end_date" to provide the start and end datetime of task instance
> intervals, I'd be happy to add them.
>
> Cheers,
> Bas
>
>
>
>
>
>
