pierrejeambrun opened a new pull request, #71552:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/71552
The whole execution API returns errors as `{"reason": …, "message": …,
...extras}` today — that shape is the de-facto contract, applied uniformly
across every route in
`airflow-core/src/airflow/api_fastapi/execution_api/routes/` (task instances,
dag runs, xcoms, connections, variables, dags, assets, asset events, asset
state store, hitl, connection tests, task state store), and it's parsed by the
task SDK client (`task-sdk/src/airflow/sdk/api/client.py:255` raises
`TaskAlreadyRunningError` on `detail["reason"] == "invalid_state"` and
`detail["previous_state"] == "running"`).
The `TODO: Pass a RFC 9457 compliant error message` comment on this one 409
site predates that convention and is now misleading. Any single-endpoint
migration to RFC 9457 would (a) break the SDK parser and (b) make this endpoint
the only RFC-9457 endpoint in the module, which is a worse inconsistency than
the current uniform shape.
Removing the comment so it stops attracting drive-by "fix RFC 9457" PRs. If
we ever want the execution API on RFC 9457, that's a cross-cutting migration of
every route + every SDK parser + docs — an AIP-shaped conversation, not a
one-liner.
related: #69360
##### Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
- [X] Yes — Claude Code (Opus 4.7)
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 4.7) following [the
guidelines](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/05_pull_requests.rst#gen-ai-assisted-contributions)
--
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]
