+1 for this idea. Should we provide some way of validating existing connections so users can check this before upgrading to 3.0?
Thanks, Tomek On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 10:14, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm all for this. > > What does this mean for the extra and extra_dejson attrs that exist on > Connection right now? > > -a > > On Thu, Feb 24 2022 at 23:23:20 -0800, Daniel Standish > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's generally assumed that the `extra` field in airflow's Connection > model is JSON string. However, it's not, strictly speaking, *required* > to be so. > > I believe we should require it to be JSON. > > But I also think we should nudge this a tiny bit further. A python string > value such as '"hi"' contains a valid json string "hi". And similarly the > string '[0,2,3]' is _also_ a valid string. But this is not at all what is > intended for `extra` and, I think for pretty obvious reasons, a bad idea. > So I think we should _also_ require that the value for `extra`, if > provided, must be json that parses as a python _dict_. > > So, to summarize, the proposal is, from release 3.0, require that conn > `extra` be json (or None) and require that the json (if provided) must > parse as a dict. > > PR to implement deprecation as prescribed by the proposal is here > <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/21816>. > > This vote will run until Tuesday at 8am UTC (three full weekdays). > > Thanks for your consideration. > >
