SamWheating commented on a change in pull request #17924:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/17924#discussion_r699506562
##########
File path: airflow/www/views.py
##########
@@ -678,18 +678,19 @@ def index(self):
for name, in dagtags
]
- import_errors =
session.query(errors.ImportError).order_by(errors.ImportError.id).all()
+ import_errors =
session.query(errors.ImportError).order_by(errors.ImportError.id)
- if import_errors:
- dag_filenames = {dag.fileloc for dag in dags}
- all_dags_readable = (permissions.ACTION_CAN_READ,
permissions.RESOURCE_DAG) in user_permissions
+ if (permissions.ACTION_CAN_READ, permissions.RESOURCE_DAG) not in
user_permissions:
+ # if the user doesn't have access to all DAGs, only display
errors from visible DAGs
+ import_errors = import_errors.join(
+ DagModel, DagModel.fileloc == errors.ImportError.filename
+ ).filter(DagModel.dag_id.in_(filter_dag_ids))
- for import_error in import_errors:
- if all_dags_readable or import_error.filename in dag_filenames:
- flash(
- "Broken DAG: [{ie.filename}]
{ie.stacktrace}".format(ie=import_error),
- "dag_import_error",
- )
+ for import_error in import_errors:
+ flash(
+ "Broken DAG: [{ie.filename}]
{ie.stacktrace}".format(ie=import_error),
+ "dag_import_error",
+ )
Review comment:
Does it functionally make a difference? Since the query is instantiated
with the session within the context manager it would still be using the same
session outside of the context manager, right?
I agree that it makes sense to move it over, I'm just trying to understand
why this isn't breaking currently 🤔
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
