Hey all, These are the cases where I would lean toward supporting both styles, even if it introduces some additional maintenance in `cli_config.py`. The PR ( https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65261) adds a thin compatibility layer that allows users to call commands either by passing values positionally or by explicitly naming each parameter. This keeps existing scripts working as they are, it allows user to be well defined in automated scripts while also giving users a shorter and more flexible option for quick commands locally.
The existing Airflow CLI already uses positional arguments for required parameters, so this approach still feels familiar. At the same time, adding support for named arguments gives users an option that can be clearer and more self-documenting. ```example output in case you won't pass the positional argument ... airflow connections add command error: the following arguments are required: conn_id, see help above. ``` There is some cost in maintaining this behaviour, but it is relatively contained since the mapping is generated automatically from the spec rather than maintained per command. In return, users get the freedom to choose the style that fits their workflow. Some prefer explicitness for readability, others prefer brevity for speed. Open to feedback to make this part the final state. It may not make sense or against some approaches, I am thinking more from a usability perspective. Please share your thoughts. Kind regards, Bugra Ozturk
