+1 Similar view to Jed. I view this as adding a feature, rather than breaking compatibility.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 3:20 PM Jed Cunningham <jedcunning...@apache.org> wrote: > +1. I view it as adding a feature vs breaking compatibility. > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:15 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis > <ferru...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > >> 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 >> >>
