potiuk commented on PR #30669: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/30669#issuecomment-1510515811
Yes. I agree with @ashb that the try_number mutation has been a bummer and has some historical connotations that are non-obvious and it should be very, very carefully checked. Especially all the more exotic scenarions: retries on failure, backfills, manual runs, etc. etc. Especially I think it might be worth to look at PRs and issues where "try_num" has been mentioned and see all the times it's been attempted to fix it. It might be solved, sure, but it should be carefully tested - not only via unit tests but also including likely manually going trough set of test cases that will be worked out based on those historical context - and maybe even working out some new test scenarios. For me this one is the kind of issues that are close to one of the best comments described here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/184618/what-is-the-best-comment-in-source-code-you-have-ever-encountered > // > // Dear maintainer: > // > // Once you are done trying to 'optimize' this routine, > // and have realized what a terrible mistake that was, > // please increment the following counter as a warning > // to the next guy: > // > // total_hours_wasted_here = 42 > // Maybe not as difficult, but likely with similar level of non-obviousness. -- 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]
