While I understand the benefits of the "clean" "REST" API where resources are identified by a nice hierarchy, I do not think it is necessary to follow it for this kind of queries.I think the "resources" based approach indeed breaks down when you want to make more complex queries and want to do it efficiently, without running many API calls or returning superfluous information. I think that's the reason where GraphQL shines compared to REST-like APIs. I think in this case "purity" impacts performance a lot.
I know we did not choose GraphQL (and for good reasons - it's complexity is not needed in our case) - but I think there are cases where we want efficiency and we want to limit a number of requests or superfluous information retrieved. But looking at the balance between purity and efficiency for asking about "no matter which dag" or "no matter which executionDate" - I think the AIP-159 proposal strikes a good balance. It's pretty natural, easy to read and does not break the structure. I would not use "*" because it can be interpreted differently when URL-encoded/decoded because it is a reserved character ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.2) - and some languages (Apparently PHP <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6533561/urlencode-the-asterisk-star-character> might have problems with encoding it accidentally) . I'd use one of the un-reserved ones (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.3)). If - (dash) is out of the question due to compatibility, I'd use ~(tilde). So if we only want to focus on this kind of query, I think option II. (but with ~) is good for me. I have only one doubt about it. Do we want to handle other queries to taskInstances across dag_id or execution_date? For example corresponding to DAG_ID IN (DAG_1, DAG_2, DAG_3) or DAG_ID LIKE ("DAG_%") from typical SQL queries?. I think that might be a useful type of queries. even more so for executionDate. From what I see we do not have filters for those, but I wonder if this is not something we could do with additional filters and still keep the nice structure? For example: /dags/-/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances?dag_id=DAG_1,DAG_2,DAG_3, Not sure if this is something we even want to follow? Ash - what are your thoughts about it? Why do you have doubts about the AIP159 approach ? What problems do you foresee with it ? J. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 7:37 PM QP Hou <q...@scribd.com> wrote: > I would recommend option III. > > IMHO, hierarchy based endpoints are for CURD operations on a single > entity. The flat endpoint, like /taskinstance, is for read-only > multi-facet search queries. > > For example: > > * to create a resource Foo: "POST /api/parent/{parent_id}/foo" > * to update a resource Foo: "PUT /api/parent/{parent_id}/foo/{foo_id}" > * to get a single Foo entity: "GET /api/parent/{parent_id}/foo/{foo_id}" > * to search for multiple Foo entities using multiple filters: "GET > /api/foo?parent_id=id1,id2,id3&owner=user1" > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:08 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I apologize for my very negative behavior. I misunderstood the rules. > > I updated the specification based on the discussion. I hope that now I > > have not missed any suggestions that I had to make. I tried to make > > every change in a separate commit, so you can review the changes one > > by one. > > > > Here is new PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/8721 > > > > Short summary: > > * Changed type for DAGID, DAGRunID, TaskID. Now we use string instead > > of an integer. > > * EventLog collection is read-only > > * Used ExcutionDate in DagRuns endpoints > > * Used custom action to control task instances - Removed PATCH > > /dags/{dag_id}/taskInstances/{task_id}/{execution_date} endpoint and > > added PATCH /dags/{dag_id}/clearTaskInstanaces. > > * Added endpoint - POST /dagRuns "Trigger a DAG Run" > > * Added filter parameters to GET /dags/{dag_id}/taskInstances. > > * Added filter parameters to GET /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns > > * Removed DELETE /taskInstances endpoint > > * The connection ID is a unique key that identifies the connection > > * Moved TaskInstances resource under DagRuns resource > > * Fixed many typos > > > > There is one more topic for discussion - reading resources across > > multiple collections. > > In other words - how do I retrieve task instances for multiple DAGs? > > We have several solutions. > > I) Currently, the endpoint that receives a list of task instances is > > available at /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances: > > This endpoint support reading resources across multiple DAGs by > > specifying a "-" as a dag_id or an execution_date. > > This is based on Google recommendations - AIP159 [1]. I relied on > > these recommendations because it is the most comprehensive study on > > API design principles. Ash Berlin-Taylor rightly pointed out that this > > would be a backward-incompatible change. > > II) We can use a different character that will have the same role - > > '*'. This character cannot be in Dag/Task ID, so it's safe. > > III) Ash proposed to add a separate endpoint that will not include the > > DAG ID in the address - /taskInstances > > > > If we want to choose one solution then I think it's worth looking at > > what the endpoints for DAGs look like. > > /dags > > /dags/{dag_id} > > /dags/{dag_id}/clearTaskInstanaces > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/ > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/links > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/logs/{task_try_number} > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/xcomEntries > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/xcomEntries/{key} > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execution_date} > > /dags/{dag_id}/structure > > /dags/{dag_id}/tasks > > /dags/{dag_id}/tasks/{task_id} > > In my opinion, here is a clear hierarchy of resources that will > > facilitate the use of API. The third solution causes that this > > hierarchy is disturbed and the endpoints that are used to receive the > > list of elements will be at the highest level. > > We will have the following endpoints: > > /dags > > /dags/{dag_id} > > /dags/{dag_id}/clearTaskInstanaces > > /dagRuns > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns > > /taskInstances > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/ > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/links > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/logs/{task_try_number} > > /xcomEntries > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/xcomEntries > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/xcomEntries/{key} > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execution_date} > > /dags/{dag_id}/structure > > /dags/{dag_id}/tasks > > /dags/{dag_id}/tasks/{task_id} > > > > 4) Some endpoints will have similar behavior, so we can delete them. > > Then we will have the following list of endpoints. > > /dags > > /dags/{dag_id} > > /dags/{dag_id}/clearTaskInstanaces > > /dagRuns > > /taskInstances > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/ > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/links > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/logs/{task_try_number} > > /xcomEntries > > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execiton_date}/taskInstances/{task_id}/xcomEntries/{key} > > /dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{execution_date} > > /dags/{dag_id}/structure > > /dags/{dag_id}/tasks > > /dags/{dag_id}/tasks/{task_id} > > > > Which solution do you like the most? I, II, III, or IV? > > > > Best regards, > > Kamil Breguła > > > > [1] https://aip.dev/159 > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:32 PM Daniel (Daniel Lamblin ) [Data > > Infrastructure] <lamb...@coupang.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm glad the general mood is that connection_id should be unique. > > > FWIW when I had multiple connections in v1.8.2 with mysql I didn't > seem to be getting any randomized loadbalancing anyway. Then again, maybe > random was just 100 selections of 1 over 2. > > > There are many other ways to load balance connections, each specific > to the service type, so I don't see it Airflow's place to provide a > semi-generic option to do it. > > > > > > +1 for connection ID being unique. > > > > > > Pardon outlook for changing links to the ConnectionID, DagID and > PoolID being integers in a version of the API. > > > Are we past that decision already; I'd expect to use string names. > > > > > > I'd also asked about DAG run ID, task ID, and finally whether there'd > be an endpoint with which to clear tasks, because crud operations don't > model the interplay of task instance, jobs, and dag run state involved. > > > -Daniel > > > > > > On 4/14/20, 8:49 AM, "Xinbin Huang" <bin.huan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > [Warning]: This email originated from an external source. Do not > open links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. > > > [경고]: 본 이메일은 회사 외부에서 유입되었습니다. 내용이 안전한지 확인하기 전까지는 링크나 첨부파일을 열지 마십시오. > > > > > > > > > +1 on making connection IDs unique. It's confusing to have Airflow > handled > > > load balancing here. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 4:59 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to make connection ids unique > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:59 AM Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am also supporting converting the connection to be unique. > > > > > > > > > > I've worked with similar approach long time ago (10s of years) > and it was > > > > > fine then where we have not yet figured out how to scale > client/server > > > > > architecture and we did not have all the nice infrastructure > like > > > > > load/balancing, cloud services etc. I believe in most of the > current > > > > > services/systems load-balancing should be handled by the > service itself > > > > or > > > > > some kind of proxy between - not by the client side - in > production > > > > > environments. > > > > > > > > > > It's far more robust and might provide much better control > (you can > > > > control > > > > > multiple independent client's connection and do not rely on > random > > > > > distribution of connections). There are scenarios that would > not work > > > > well > > > > > in this case - for example physical proximity of the workers, > current > > > > load > > > > > on different services etc. etc. It is very limiting to rely on > this > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Kamil Breguła < > > > > kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > This can cause big problems with idempotence. According to > RFC-7231, > > > > > > the DELETE method should be idempotent. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > If you want to delete items with index from 1 to 4, you > should set the > > > > > > following request > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/4 > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/3 > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/2 > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > However, if the user sends these requests in a different > order, they > > > > > > will only delete the first and third items. > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/1 > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/2 > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/3 > > > > > > DELETE /connections/hdfs_default/4 > > > > > > > > > > > > If you use asynchronous HTTP clients (a popular in Node), > the order of > > > > > > requests will not be kept. It will also be a big problem with > > > > > > simultaneous modifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am also in favor of abandoning support for many > connections. This > > > > > > can be solved on a different layer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Kamil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:47 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > a...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are, but we _can_ make a choice to remove that > feature -- it is > > > > > not > > > > > > > widely used and is confusing to many when they stumble on > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not something we should do lightly, but it is a > possibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I'm probably leaning towards the "ordinal" concept: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /connections/hdfs_default -> list of connections with that > ID > > > > > > > /connections/hdfs_default/0 first connection of that type > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Something like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9 2020, at 2:31 pm, Shaw, Damian P. > > > > > > > <damian.sha...@credit-suisse.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI if you look back at the thread "Re: [2.0 spring > cleaning] > > > > Require > > > > > > > > unique conn_id" on 2019-04-14 you can see a message from > Kevin Yang > > > > > > > > stating that this random choice of connections is a > "feature" used > > > > to > > > > > > > > load balance connections in AirBnB. So users are relying > on this > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Daniel (Daniel Lamblin ) [Data Infrastructure] > > > > > > > > <lamb...@coupang.com> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 20:01 > > > > > > > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: API spec questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having been bit by accidentally having two connections > by the same > > > > > > > > name or conn_id, I'd prefer if were made unique. In my > experience > > > > > > > > there's little utility in having multiple connections by > the same > > > > > > > > name. Tasks that use a connection do to fairly randomly > choose one, > > > > > > > > rather they seem pretty consistent in using the one > created > > > > earliest, > > > > > > > > which often has the lower id integer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Circling back to how this is used by the API, from a user > > > > > perspective, > > > > > > > > the following in path integer fields were ones I'd have > expected to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > strings instead: > > > > > > > > ConnectionID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://kor01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fairflow%2Fblob%2F11f1e0cad996d5596e3e4fb440eb4ec52c024f70%2Fopenapi.yaml%23L1845&data=02%7C01%7Clamblin%40coupang.com%7Cd8716c2432c54849f3d708d7e08b68f2%7Ce3098f96361b47c6a9f4ab7bafcaffe9%7C0%7C0%7C637224761681223746&sdata=ur3AAggOlQ7BskKBxQxRq0i%2FS36Ol72c7H7ddwXo5C4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > DAGID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://kor01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fairflow%2Fblob%2F11f1e0cad996d5596e3e4fb440eb4ec52c024f70%2Fopenapi.yaml%23L1853&data=02%7C01%7Clamblin%40coupang.com%7Cd8716c2432c54849f3d708d7e08b68f2%7Ce3098f96361b47c6a9f4ab7bafcaffe9%7C0%7C0%7C637224761681223746&sdata=vyhFiV6Fd3pnVvlAoxnscSvvcy2NX%2BMASGmuHKu%2Fy84%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > PoolID > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://kor01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fairflow%2Fblob%2F11f1e0cad996d5596e3e4fb440eb4ec52c024f70%2Fopenapi.yaml%23L1901&data=02%7C01%7Clamblin%40coupang.com%7Cd8716c2432c54849f3d708d7e08b68f2%7Ce3098f96361b47c6a9f4ab7bafcaffe9%7C0%7C0%7C637224761681223746&sdata=4Fog92AZju0%2BN44FoBdU4fj2DwhgCbUfKYUbdjeWpgo%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though it’s a url-encoding hassle, I also expected that > DAGRunID > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be more like the Run ID E.G. > > > > > > > > "scheduled__2020-04-08T23:10:00+00:00", > > > > > > > > "manual__2020-04-08T23:00:56+00:00", > > > > > > > > "manual__2020-04-08T16:24:56.692868+00:00" , > > > > > > > > "backfill_2020-04-08T22:05:00+00:00" etc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then TaskID is confusing to me; AFAIK the PK to task > instances are > > > > > > > > task_id, dag_id, and execution_date and the api call > appears to > > > > align > > > > > > > > with that having the pattern: > > > > > > > > /dags/{dag_id}/taskInstances/{task_id}/{execution_date}: > > > > > > > > But if task_id is a numbered id, then… execution_date > isn't even > > > > > > > > needed… I'm thinking it should have been a string. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An aside to this, I've always wondered what happens if an > > > > externally > > > > > > > > triggered DAG Run has the same execution date as a > pre-existing > > > > > > > > scheduled DAG Run. They'd have different run_ids, EG > > > > > > > > "scheduled__2020-04-08T23:10:00+00:00" vs > > > > > > > > "manual__2020-04-08T23:10:00+00:00" but then task > instances for > > > > those > > > > > > > > runs might not be unique. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, the UI and CLI operation of clearing tasks seems > analogous > > > > to > > > > > > > > the delete task instance API end point. But probably > it's not, and > > > > > > > > this could become confusing to users. > > > > > > > > There should be a non-db-model api call for clearing > tasks like you > > > > > > > > can from the UI and the CLI. If I read it right, > clearing does the > > > > > > > > following: it sets the state of the task instance to > None unless > > > > the > > > > > > > > state was Running then instead it sets it and related > job ids to > > > > > > > > Shutdown. It deletes reschedules of the TI and it sets > the dag runs > > > > > > > > for those task instances back to Running. > > > > > > > > This would be a lot to do for a user using PATCH calls > to change > > > > Task > > > > > > > > Instances and Dag Runs together (and there's no API for > Jobs). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Daniel L. > > > > > > > > P.S. as far as renaming all parameters on operators and > hooks with > > > > > > > > *_conn_id, I do not want to see that breaking change > happen. But IF > > > > > it > > > > > > > > HAS TO, I'm still of the opinion that the default_args > use for > > > > > > > > X_conn_id is not preferable to having all operators take > simpler > > > > > > > > source_conn_id and optional target_conn_id parameter > names that are > > > > > > > > consistent across all operators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/8/20, 9:47 AM, "Ash Berlin-Taylor" <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Warning]: This email originated from an external > source. Do not > > > > > > > > open links or attachments unless you know the content is > safe. > > > > > > > > [경고]: 본 이메일은 회사 외부에서 유입되었습니다. 내용이 안전한지 확인하기 전까지는 링크나 > 첨부파일을 열지 > > > > > 마십시오. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To expand on the "so I think we need to do one of": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - we need to update the name of "conn_id" somehow. I > can't think > > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > better option, and given all the operators have > "x_conn_id" I > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > think that change should be made lightly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - make conn_id unique (this "poor" HA has been a > source of > > > > > > > > confusion in > > > > > > > > the past) and the ID we use in the API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or a third option: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Have the API take conn_id and either return all > conns for that > > > > > > > > conn_id, or conn_id plus an ordinal (?idx=0 type > thing) to > > > > return > > > > > a > > > > > > > > single value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8 2020, at 5:42 pm, Ash Berlin-Taylor < > a...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I mentioned in the AIP voting thread, I think > we need to > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > some more thought to how we are exposing connection > ids in the > > > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now as proposed (and merged without approval, > not cool. > > > > > The > > > > > > AIP > > > > > > > > > we voted on did not contain a PR against > apache/airflow.) it > > > > has > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > end point of `/connections/{connection_id} ` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My issue here is as I said in the previous thread: > that is > > > > going > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > > mightly confusing to our users because there is a > "conn_id" > > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > that is exposed, so people are going to try putting > > > > > "aws_default" > > > > > > etc > > > > > > > > > in there. I don't care what the API spec says, I > care what our > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > expect, and having a connection_id/id and a conn_id > fields is > > > > > > > > just confusing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think we need to do one of: > > > > > > > > > - we need to update the name of "conn_id" somehow, > make > > > > conn_id > > > > > > unique > > > > > > > > > (this "poor" HA has been a source of confusion in > the past) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are similar problems for the DAG run -- the > spec has the > > > > > > > > type as > > > > > > > > > an integer, but everything else about the Airflow > system uses > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > (unique) run_id parameter, and I would expect the > API to use > > > > > > > > that. The > > > > > > > > > autoinc. id on the run column is literally never > used in the > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > base, so exposing that via the API seems odd. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few other smaller points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EventLog: Those are "audit"/action logs, so we > probably > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > people delete them via the API! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pool_id: still an integer. It should be the "name". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How should add/delete variables and connections > work in the > > > > API > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > the addition of the new "Secrets Backends"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > xcomValues: task_id is listed as an integer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -ash > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =============================================================================== > > > > > > > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important > electronic > > > > > > > > communications disclaimer: > > > > > > > > > https://kor01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.credit-suisse.com%2Flegal%2Fen%2Fdisclaimer_email_ib.html&data=02%7C01%7Clamblin%40coupang.com%7Cd8716c2432c54849f3d708d7e08b68f2%7Ce3098f96361b47c6a9f4ab7bafcaffe9%7C0%7C0%7C637224761681223746&sdata=6e9Ck952oFmXDkoDYnM0XgCWsplYb7Dua37BkAPt22A%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =============================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > > Polidea < > https://kor01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.polidea.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clamblin%40coupang.com%7Cd8716c2432c54849f3d708d7e08b68f2%7Ce3098f96361b47c6a9f4ab7bafcaffe9%7C0%7C0%7C637224761681223746&sdata=tMOZFKjLGoXh9eAVW5rXhmJeJw8kYhlWAfwFICN%2Fpfw%3D&reserved=0> > | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > [image: Polidea] < > https://kor01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.polidea.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clamblin%40coupang.com%7Cd8716c2432c54849f3d708d7e08b68f2%7Ce3098f96361b47c6a9f4ab7bafcaffe9%7C0%7C0%7C637224761681223746&sdata=tMOZFKjLGoXh9eAVW5rXhmJeJw8kYhlWAfwFICN%2Fpfw%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
