Lee-W commented on issue #54956: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/54956#issuecomment-3232041189
> Thanks for clarifying this was intentional. Could you share a bit more about the reasoning? I want to make sure I'm not missing the context. > > From my side, having the full history is important for: > > * Debugging: aka a data quality check fails, someone approves are publishing, later clears/rejects. If I only see "rejected", I lose the key context that it was once approved > > * Completeness / Consistency: We already show logs and metadata for cleared tasks, so it feels natural to include the same for approvals. > > > I know Brent has open UX discussions on splitting "review history" vs "reviews that need action" ([link](https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/54961)), but that seems to depend on the backend capturing the full chain first. The implementation introduced unnecessary complexity without providing any benefits beyond an audit log, which is why I chose not to add it. However, the consistency apart does seem valid. I will review it to see how it can be effectively added. Thanks for clarifying! -- 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]
