As Deng mentioned, consider combining the operators.
The Airflow documentation used to say, “if you need to use data between tasks,
consider combining them into a single operator. But if you must have separate
tasks, there is xcom.”
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Dec 2019, at 4:12 am, Anton Zayn
Just add a .pre-commit-config.yaml to the project, no need for an AIP.
> On 24 Jul 2019, at 2:42 am, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> Any more comments on it?
> Should I make an AIP for that :)? Or should I just ask a vote/propose a PR
> ? Anyone has a strong opinion?
> I think it changes the dev workfl
A separate airflow-contrib repo, on a separate release cadence would be my
preference.
> On 12 Apr 2019, at 11:17 pm, Julian De Ruiter
> wrote:
>
> Isn’t this in contradiction with AIP-8, which is aimed at removing
> operators/hooks from the core Airflow package?
>
> Personally I would rath
Thanks Ash and contributors.
> On 12 Apr 2019, at 3:38 am, Gabriel Silk wrote:
>
> Nice work!
>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 9:21 AM Sid Anand wrote:
>>
>> Woot! Piling on with the kudos to Ash!
>>
>> -s
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:55 AM Jarek Potiuk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great work Ash!
>>>
+1 non binding
Pylint is extremely strict so your may want to be selective about the rules it
applies.
> On 12 Apr 2019, at 7:15 am, Kamil Breguła wrote:
>
> +! (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:05 PM Driesprong, Fokko
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> For more information about
+1 non binding
> On 26 Mar 2019, at 8:41 am, Julian De Ruiter
> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Best regards / met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Julian de Ruiter
> Machine learning engineer
>
> ▉▉▉ GoDataDriven
> Proudly part of the Xebia group
>
> M: +31 6 30 61 26 24
> W: http://www.godatad
Yes it should be named after the module it's testing.
Regarding backwards compatibility, isn't a new major version a chance to break
backwards compatibility?
> On 30 Dec 2018, at 3:24 am, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>
> When moving a class out into its own file should the corresponding tests
> als
