> This was ambiguous regarding the value you wanted to retrieve and the intended change.
While I see why we cannot (should not) bring back the "exact" behaviour, I think we could - potentially at least - make it non-ambiguous and predictable by defining the semantics and ordering and selecting the first one. And - I think - we do not **have** to bring it back in this particular method. Maybe we can just a new method call with defined ordering and semantics - behaving predictably, similar to Airflow 2—and clearly defined semantically. That would at least give people an easier way to migrate? While I think the cat if out-of-the bag and we cannot truly revert the change (because that would again potentially affect 3.0 - 3.2 users) - but we could at least make it easier for people to cope with it without too much hassle while waiting for the task state to be available in this particular case? Just a thought I had - ... listen to your users and do things easier for them - without breaking our SemVer promises. J. On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 3:20 PM Foldvari, Gyorgy via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > I do not want to use XCom for managing task state. It was just a very > simple - and seemingly misleading - example to explain the original > behavior. > > I gave details about valid use cases and issues caused by this change in > the behavior, in my original post. Those are not addressed by the AIP you > are referring to. > > But that AIP would definitely address another valid use case what I am > missing especially for implementing stateful sensors, so I really hope it > goes through and gets implemented. > > > Information Classification: GENERAL > -----Original Message----- > From: Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 14:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Reconsidering `xcom_pull(task_ids=None)` behavior > change in Airflow 3 > > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > This was ambiguous as to what value you wanted to get, and an intended > change. > > If you want this sort of behaviour, then you probably want to look at > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-103%3A+Task+State+Management > which provides a dedicated way to manage state without many of the quirks > of XCom interface as it stands today. Reading between the lines, I think > this API describes what you want? > > -ash > > > On 15 Apr 2026, at 12:45, Foldvari, Gyorgy via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see where the confusion is coming from, it is my mistake. Sorry about > that. > > > > To clarify, I am taking about the use case where the key parameter is > passed but the task_ids parameter is not or it is None. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Foldvari, Gyorgy via dev <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 13:42 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Foldvari, Gyorgy <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: Re: [DISCUSS] Reconsidering `xcom_pull(task_ids=None)` > > behavior change in Airflow 3 > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > > > The original behavior is to return the most recent value put by any > upstream task of the same run. Not all the values, only the recent one. > > Supposing that there are multiple tasks pushing values to XCom in this > order: > > Task1: ti.xcom_push(key="example", value=1) > > Task2: ti.xcom_push(key="example", value=2) > > Task3: ti.xcom_push(key="example", value=3) Then in a downstream task > ti.comm_pull(key="example") returns 3. > > I do not propose to change this behavior. > > > > On 2026/04/14 16:09:05 Daniel Standish via dev wrote: > >> So the behavior before would be that it would return all xcom values > >> that were emitted from the present run? > >> > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Information regarding MSCI's processing of personal data may be found > > at http://www.msci.com/privacy-pledge. This email message and any > attachments > > are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain > > proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or > > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, > > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. All rights and remedies are > > reserved. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the > > sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies > > of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. > > Local registered entity information: > > https://www.msci.com/local-registered-entities > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > ________________________________ > > Information regarding MSCI’s processing of personal data may be found at > http://www.msci.com/privacy-pledge. This email message and any > attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain > proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. All rights and remedies are > reserved. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender > by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the > message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local > registered entity information: > https://www.msci.com/local-registered-entities >
