Definitly +1 for removing this whatever this is supposed to mean :D -feluelle -------- Original Message -------- On Jul 3, 2019, 20:03, Driesprong, Fokko wrote:
> I think this is very awkward, +1 on removing > > Op wo 3 jul. [2019](tel:2019) om 19:57 schreef Kamil Breguła > <kamil.breg...@polidea.com >>: > >> This is very confusing. >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel:2019) at 7:20 PM Christian Lellmann >> <christian.lellm...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Me neither. Also from me +1 (non-binding) on removal. >> > >> > Tao Feng <fengta...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 3. Juli [2019](tel:2019), >> > 18:38: >> > >> > > I am not aware of this feature either. And +1 on removing it. >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel:2019) at 9:36 AM Kaxil Naik >> > > <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I am definitely sure that 99% of users, including me, didn't knew >> this >> > > > feature ever existed 😀. >> > > > >> > > > It is not a feature worth having tbh. So I am in favor of removing >> it. >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Kaxil >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel:2019), 18:37 James Meickle >> > > > <jmeic...@quantopian.com >> > > .invalid> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I didn't even know this was a feature. Seems like it's >> unnecessarily >> > > > > ambiguous, since you can't tell at a glance whether a variable is a >> > dag >> > > > or >> > > > > a task. Definitely in favor of removal. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel:2019) at 8:49 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor >> > > > > <a...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I'm just suggesting removing the `dag >> task` -- `task >> task` >> > will >> > > > > stay >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 3 Jul [2019](tel:2019), at 13:46, Philippe Gagnon < >> philgagn...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Just to be clear, are you suggesting removing all bitshift >> > operator >> > > > > > > overloads from airflow operators (sorry - the dual meaning of >> > > > operator >> > > > > > here >> > > > > > > is confusing), or just the assignment to DAG behavior? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If it's the former, I find it to be a particularly expressive >> way >> > > to >> > > > > > define >> > > > > > > dependencies between tasks so I would vote to keep it as is. >> The >> > > > latter >> > > > > > > usage is much less useful, so I would be +1 on removing it. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, [2019](tel:2019) at 8:42 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor < >> a...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is possible to assign a task to the dag using the bitshift >> > > > > operators, >> > > > > > >> however it doesn't pick up default_args when done this way < >> > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-883>: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> ``` >> > > > > > >> dag = DAG('my_dag', default_args=default_args) >> > > > > > >> dummy = DummyOperator(task_id='dummy') >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> dag >> dummy >> > > > > > >> ``` >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> We could fix that, but how about instead we remove this way of >> > > > > assigning >> > > > > > >> tasks to dags, leaving the context manager (`with dag:`) and >> > other >> > > > > > >> constructions (`Operator(..., dag=dag)`) >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Thoughts? >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
