dstandish commented on a change in pull request #19214:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/19214#discussion_r736703287
##########
File path: docs/apache-airflow/tutorial_taskflow_api.rst
##########
@@ -224,11 +224,11 @@ is automatically set to true.
Note, If you manually set the ``multiple_outputs`` parameter the inference is
disabled and
the parameter value is used.
-Adding dependencies to decorated tasks from regular tasks
----------------------------------------------------------
-The above tutorial shows how to create dependencies between python-based
tasks. However, it is
-quite possible while writing a DAG to have some pre-existing tasks such as
:class:`~airflow.operators.bash.BashOperator` or
:class:`~airflow.sensors.filesystem.FileSensor`
-based tasks which need to be run first before a python-based task is run.
+Adding dependencies to decorated tasks from traditional tasks
Review comment:
> Although, do we want to use "TaskFlow functions" instead of "TaskFlow
tasks" to be consistent?
Fine with me...
And it certainly doesn't need to be resolved here but personally I am not
sure how i feel about the language `TaskFlow functions` when we're talking
about the tasks they produce. Maybe the only thing we should refer to as a
"taskflow function" is the function. And once it is called, the returned
value is now a task, and should be referred to as a task. wdyt?
> Yeah, fair. I think the original section heading was chosen because the
example is specifically from TaskFlow function to a traditional task but I
think folks could understand that's the concept is bidirectional
yeah i mean it totally works either way, (and certainly no dying on hills
here either :) )... just some caffeinated thoughts on it...
i guess the reason the language seemed awkward to me is because for example
t1 >> t2 is the same as t2 << t1 -- i.e. you could say the "dependency
_relationship_" is symmetrical.
but on further reflection i see you could read "dependency" as only one
direction -- this task _depends_ on that one, i.e. t1 must run before t2. but
still, that particular phrasing still seems to me to be a bit ambiguous. e.g.
if you say "there's a dependency from task `hello` to task `hola`" it doesn't
really make it clear which one is upstream and which is downstream.
another way one could think of it, the example illustrates how to add
dependencies between tasks created in these two ways _in general_. i.e. true,
in the example one is upstream of the other but it doesn't really matter
because the technique is the same no matter the directionality. so we don't
need to describe it as the special case of `traditional >> TF`.
--
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]
