potiuk commented on issue #33945:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/33945#issuecomment-1704036739

   > Also the motivation behind this issue is to avoid confusing new users, but 
new users typically run Airflow with default settings, so keeping existing 
value as the default might kind of miss the point
   
   Fully agree. My proposal was not achieving the goal. But I have another 
constructive proposal. If our goal is not to confuse the user, then we should 
do it completely differently. The current way when type of the run is part of t 
run_id is fundamentally broken - since the moment we allowed the users to add 
their own run_ids. 
   
   IMHO the right, backwards compatible and forward looking solution to it is 
to add the "run_type" fields with enum field that explained the type of the run 
and possibly even few more fields (people often ask to be able to see who 
triggered the run - so having a field where we could keep that information in 
run_id - currently users are looking at teh audit logs to find it out, but this 
is also fundamentally flawed.
   
   So if our goal is to avoid confusion, and help our users- I would say we 
should forget about run_jd and add other - more structured and defined ways 
that the users will be able to use to determine type of run and other releated 
information.
   
   And in this case - we could leave the `manual_` prefix as is and even 
explain it "don't use it to determine the run type, this is purely historical - 
use the run_type field to do it".
   
   Yes. It's more complex (also involves changing the UI for example to surface 
that information) but IMHO - trying to keep the flawed mechanisms of 
determining the run type and fixing it "a little" is not a god idea if we can 
do it better, backwards compatible and future looking as well.
   


-- 
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]

Reply via email to