I definitely like it, I love reducing boilerplate code like that.
________________________________ From: Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 3:43 AM To: dev@airflow.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Auto-registering of DAGs in DAG file? (no `as dag` needed?) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hello all, I'm on a bit of a kick thinking about developer (specifically DAG author) experience and if there is anything we can Some time ago there was a previous conversation about if we should/could "autoregister" DAGs, rather than just looking at the objects in the top level (globals()) of a file, an I knocked up this PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/23592 The question I have for you all is do we think this is good idea? It does somewhat subtly change the behaviour in a few cases. Lets take this example this from the docs https://airflow.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/concepts/dags.html#loading-dags dag_1 = DAG('this_dag_will_be_discovered') def my_function(): dag_2 = DAG('but_this_dag_will_not') my_function() As implemented right now the second dag won't get picked up (as the auto registration is handled in the context manager, but if the example was changed to use a context manager it will get loaded/discovered: with DAG('this_dag_will_be_discovered'): EmptyOperator(task_id='task') def my_function(): with DAG('so_will_this_dag_now'): EmptyOperator(task_id='task') my_function() With the change in my PR both DAGs would be picked up. Does that count as a breaking change do you think? Is this behaviour more helpful to users, or do we think it would be confusing? (If I get a few thumbs up I will update the docs in my PR to cover this new behaviour.) -ash
