potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569918440
@zhongjiajie -> I added a note in concepts (and changed the name to
"Relationship builders" :).
potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569765487
@mik-laj ?
This is an automated message from the
potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569711638
Updated all comments @kaxil ! What shall we do with the backwards
compatibility there? Do you think we should worry
potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569655919
@mik-laj -> moved the methods back to be module methods (in baseoperator
module) also added more description in
potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569596211
> These functions are used by users, so we should think about backward
compatibility.
Yep. Agree - that's why i
potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569529004
And we have a follow-up substantial pylint update on top of that, so it
would be great to merge it rather quickly.
potiuk commented on issue #6950: [AIRFLOW-6392] Remove cyclic dependency
baseoperator <-> helpers
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6950#issuecomment-569528929
I'd love some other review as well for that one, I am moving some of the
"helper" methods to BaseOperator's static
