I know we are distracting a bit from the main subject, but I think it's worth it.
I think this is a fact of life that people don't remove deprecations. But we have a choice of "not doing anything about it" and complaining. Or doing something that might improve it. I usually err on the side of "doing something" when I see a problem. I am a doer :). And I have a possibly controversial proposal. I got the inspiration from node.js old versions. Whenever an old version of Node is being used, you have a 20 seconds delay artificially added and information that in order to remove those 20 seconds you need to upgrade. Why don't we do that for some really old/serious deprecations ? Maybe not 20 seconds. Maybe adding an unremovable RED warning in the UI if you have any deprecation unhandled. Something that is annoying enough that will cause people to make an action but not intrusive enough to break things. I think this is a very basic psychological trait: If it does not cost the user anything to leave the deprecations, there will be a big number of people who will do that. We need to make sure that deprecations are costing our users "a little" and that they are aware that they can remove the cost (and know how - this is super important that we only show such a message with clear instructions on what to do). Such a message might be annoying in many ways: * it can obstruct significant part of the screen * It can be flashy and had very annoying colours (think bold pink fonts on flash-green background for example) * It can not allow to do anything before the user closes it with a REALLY small 'x' that it is difficult to point at (think cookie banners). And when they click they can be greeted with "You know - you can actually remove this warning by doing THIS". * and we have probably more options - our UX specialists might have some good ideas here For anyone who complains about "people do not act on deprecation." - yeah this is true. But one universal truth there is that if we won't act, this will change nothing in the behaviour of our users - this is 100% certain. If we do something - it might improve it. We will not get a 100% success for sure, but we can at least do something to improve it. WDYT? J. On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 6:52 AM Felix Uellendall <felue...@pm.me.invalid> wrote: > Hi Ping, > > I had this idea about auto-fixing deprecation warnings too when I started > the airflint project. > I totally agree with what you said that often people ignore these warnings > and therefore a cli tool would come in very handy. It could look similar to > the airflint project and also be based on the python refactor package, but > I would keep it out of this discussion for now. > > Regarding the schedule arg, I don’t have a strong opinion there but > also tend to having one schedule arg, because of simplicity for the dag > author. > > Best, > Felix > > > > Sent from Proton Mail for iOS > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 00:23, Ping Zhang <pin...@umich.edu> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > +1 for ‘schedule' and thanks for bringing this up. > > I agree with Vikram, we should be very careful about deprecating existing > params even if we have warnings around it. Not sure if this is a general > case, but I notice that people ignore warnings all the time until it starts > to break. Thus I am thinking if airflow can have a cli tool to help users > to batch update these deprecating params just like python's futurize tool. > This can greatly ease the burden of upgrading the airflow version. > > > Thanks, > > Ping > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 3:13 PM Daniel Standish > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > >> In case you forgot about us @Vikram, gentle nudge >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel Standish < >> daniel.stand...@astronomer.io> wrote: >> >>> Well, this is a discussion thread, so let's discuss! >>> >>> Vikram, what kind of implications are you thinking of? Maybe you could >>> provide a little more detail about your concerns? >>> >>> There are certainly alternatives, and of course each of them has >>> tradeoffs. >>> >>> Here are the options I see: >>> >>> 1. consolidate to schedule (deprecate schedule_interval and timetable; >>> the proposal under discussion in this thread) >>> 2. do nothing (keep 3 different scheduling params) >>> 3. consolidate to schedule_interval (deprecate timetable) >>> 4. don't deprecate timetable, but remove schedule_on (AIP-48 has added >>> it in main) and take List[Dataset] in `schedule_interval` >>> >>> Which would you propose we go with? >>> >>> If we have a veto against 1 (and again, we're in hypothetical territory >>> since this is still a discussion thread), my vote would definitely be to go >>> with 3. >>> >>> The param `schedule_interval` as catch all is not *sooo *bad, but >>> `schedule` definitely seems better. From a new user's perspective, having >>> misleading names is confusing, and can be a negative when looking at >>> adoption. And for a tenured user, it can nag at you. And dealing with >>> deprecations as an Airflow user, well it's sort of part of the job, though >>> it can be bothersome, certainly. >>> >>> Just to look at / compare feasibility. >>> >>> Deprecating schedule_interval, it would be more prominent than some >>> other deprecations because it's a DAG param. That said, I think it's pretty >>> straightforward to handle. For one, it's at the cardinality of DAG and not >>> *task*, so there is less to change with than some other deprecations. >>> And being kwargs-only, it's an easy find and replace that could be >>> automated with an `upgrade-check` script. It's very easy to detect, either >>> to warn about, or ultimately, after upgrade, to fail the DAG parse (which >>> forces user to fix). Perhaps we could even experiment with a deprecation >>> fix tool, so that users could get help fixing deprecations, not necessarily >>> in the context of an upgrade, since we're not looking at 3.0 any time soon. >>> >>> We could compare with execution_date, if execution_date is to be removed >>> in 3.0. I think the deprecation of execution_date will be a more difficult >>> thing for users to handle. For one, potentially higher cardinality, since >>> it is used in tasks. But also, the use of execution_date can be harder to >>> detect, since it can be in templates and elsewhere in custom operators. >>> *(With >>> schedule_interval, since it's a top-level dag kwarg, it will be easier.)* >>> And execution_date was replaced with `logical_date` for similar reasons -- >>> avoiding user confusion. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:42 PM Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> -1 from me. >>>> >>>> Though I agree in principle with the idea of consolidation, I don't >>>> think we should be doing this yet until we understand the implications >>>> completely. >>>> I am really not in favor of deprecation of the existing params, unless >>>> there is really no alternative. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:37 PM Daniel Standish >>>> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So far, seems all in favor. >>>>> >>>>> I will just highlight, in case it's not clear.... when we release this >>>>> (presumably 2.4), basically every single dag in existence will start >>>>> emitting deprecation warnings, and prior to 3.0, basically every dag in >>>>> existence will need to be updated. >>>>> >>>>> Thankfully, for most people, this should be an easy update since DAG >>>>> is kwargs only, IIRC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, 2:27 PM Brent Bovenzi >>>>> <br...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 to consolidating and "schedule". >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, 10:12 PM Drew Hubl >>>>>> <drew.h...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for ‘schedule', and another +1 to the importance of consolidating >>>>>>> to one being more important than the name of that one >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2022, at 1:58 PM, Josh Fell < >>>>>>> josh.d.f...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consolidating to a single scheduling parameter is a big +1 from me. >>>>>>> `schedule` seems like a nice catch-all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 9:10 AM Jed Cunningham < >>>>>>> jedcunning...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 on moving to a single `schedule` param. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
