[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-3249?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16662142#comment-16662142
]
Ben Marengo edited comment on AIRFLOW-3249 at 10/24/18 11:28 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[~ashb] / [~Fokko] / [~itscaro] - following your interest in AIRFLOW-3133 and
[the PR|https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/3981], any thoughts on
how to handle this backward incompatibility? ie. is it worth going through some
deprecation cycle, or shall we just do it and call it out as part of the 2.0
upgrade guidelines?
was (Author: marengaz):
[~ashb] / [~Fokko] / [~itscaro] - following your interest in AIRFLOW-3133 and
[the PR|https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/3981], any thoughts on
how to handle this backward incompatibility?
> unify do_xcom_push for all operators
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: AIRFLOW-3249
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-3249
> Project: Apache Airflow
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ben Marengo
> Assignee: Ben Marengo
> Priority: Major
>
> following the implementation of AIRFLOW-3207 (global option to stop task
> pushing result to xcom), i did a quick search around to find out which
> operators have a custom implementation of this {{do_xcom_push}} flag:
> ||operator||instance var||__init__ arg||will change be backward comp?||
> |DatabricksRunNowOperator|do_xcom_push | do_xcom_push|(/)|
> |DatabricksSubmitRunOperator|do_xcom_push| do_xcom_push|(/)|
> |DatastoreExportOperator|xcom_push| xcom_push|(x)|
> |DatastoreImportOperator|xcom_push| xcom_push|(x)|
> |KubernetesPodOperator|xcom_push|xcom_push |(x)|
> |SSHOperator|xcom_push|xcom_push |(x)|
> |WinRMOperator|xcom_push| xcom_push|(x)|
> |BashOperator|xcom_push_flag|xcom_push|(x)|
> |DockerOperator|xcom_push_flag|xcom_push|(x)|
> |SimpleHttpOperator|xcom_push_flag|xcom_push|(x)|
> this custom implementation should be removed.
> i presume also that the operators with instance var = xcom_push conflict with
> method BaseOperator.xcom_push() and probably aren't working properly anyway!?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
