Viicos commented on PR #44249: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/44249#issuecomment-2493386351
> I think this change is breaking far too much of an existing code base Since the release of 2.10, we only had one report (https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic/issues/10924) related to evaluation of forward annotations. > Pydantic is so popular and used in many, many dependencies We are aware of that, it is, in some cases, extremely challenging for us to make changes/cleanups, especially because in the field of forward annotations evaluation. The standard library utilities are far from perfect, so we had to implement our own logic to support edge cases that unfortunately led to a messy implementation, accepting invalid annotations to evaluate (this can be dangerous as names in forward annotations could resolve to the wrong type) [^1]. > it's simply not reasonable to expect that existing released code will be updated Honestly, this requires a one line change on your end: https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/f33166a612218a10cee0e42cde36bc43fc184222/airflow/utils/log/logging_mixin.py#L68-L78 Your usage of type annotations is inconsistent here, as you are mixing the new union syntax with `Optional`. Note that if this class were to be defined in the same module as [`TaskInstancePydantic`](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/1307e37bc6338c43aa5099752d012e244f8494ba/airflow/serialization/pydantic/taskinstance.py#L84), the issue would have appeared already. > So I would seriously reconsider that "fix" and revert it or workaround it in 2.10.2 The "fix" is not actually a fix, but a complete refactor of our forward annotations evaluation. It's unfortunately not possible for us to "revert" it. The current implementation is vastly more accurate, and as I said above will avoid dangerous issues when forward annotations are silently _not_ resolved to the correct type. [^1]: Read more [here](https://docs.pydantic.dev/latest/internals/resolving_annotations/#the-challenges-of-runtime-evaluation). -- 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]
