dstandish commented on code in PR #25919:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/25919#discussion_r955522680
##########
airflow/api_connexion/openapi/v1.yaml:
##########
@@ -3526,10 +3526,10 @@ components:
producing_tasks:
type: array
items:
- $ref: '#/components/schemas/DatasetTaskRef'
+ $ref: '#/components/schemas/TaskDatasetProducer'
- DatasetTaskRef:
+ TaskDatasetProducer:
Review Comment:
yeah i too am unsatisfied with this (and btw i appreciate you still taking a
critical look at this even though sentiment is mostly behind the one option)
sort of by accident, i arrived at naming that feels somewhat better.
i had a reason to define relationships on DagModel in another PR,
[here](https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/25959/files#diff-62c8e300ee91e0d59f81e0ea5d30834f04db71ae74f2e155a10b51056b00b59bR3029-R3030).
And I think that sort of clarified what would be somewhat better naming.
1. rename `DatasetTaskRef` to `TaskOutletDatasetReference`
2. rename `DatasetDagRef` to `DagScheduleDatasetReference`
think about what these objects are.... are they "dataset producer tasks" or
"dataset producing tasks"? no. they are "dataset references stored in task
outlets".... so.... why not call them "task outlet dataset references".
similar with the other one ... they are "dag schedule dataset
references".... seems pretty simple and straightforward and logical to me.
also resolves the `<from>_<to>` convention problem.
wdyt
--
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]
