eladkal commented on PR #29346: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/29346#issuecomment-1418992002
I don't know how common this use case is? This is the first time ever that I see such request for a sensor. It feels more like something you should have as a custom operator in your own Airflow instance. Unlike other operator/sensor improvements which may not be common but do no harm in this case our options are: 1. Add `check_for_absence` to GCSObjectExistenceSensor which is confusing because it would do the opposite of what this sensor is designed to do. 2. Deprecate and rename the class to something more generic like @pankajastro suggested that can support both behaviors. This means that all users of this operators (and I expect there are many!) will have to change their code because of this probably not very common use case. I don't this use case justify it. I tend not to accept this until we see significant user voice in favor of this. i wonder what others think? -- 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]
