-1 (binding). As shared earlier, the benefit it brings may not be enough to break even for me. And it’s not irreplaceable.
XD > On 5 Dec 2019, at 11:10 PM, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > -1 (binding) it definitely seems to be a source of confusion and comparing > it to the advantages it provides, I would be hesitant on using it. > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:56 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > >> Here is a quick vote on using asserts in Airflow code. >> >> It is distilled from the discussion >> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org. >> >> Here are the two options: >> >> *[+1]* Allow using asserts in some specific cases.* >> *[-1]**: Forbid using asserts.* >> >> The voting will last till Monday 4 pm CET. The committers have binding >> votes, but everyone is encouraged to call advisory - non-binding - votes as >> well. >> >> Consider that my +1 (binding) vote. >> >> >> * [+1] The case are clearly "strictly meant for developers" assertions >> (None fields mainly) - which are more like type annotations and can be >> stripped away when optimising. If those asserts are stripped out, another >> exception will be thrown out shortly. If we agree to that we will add some >> clear rules for those asserts in CONTRIBUTING.md and make it part of code >> review process to check if assertions are "proper". >> >> ** [-1] Forbidding using asserts is mainly due to ambiguities when to >> use/when to not use asserts. If we agree to that, we will forbid using >> asserts via pre-commits and remove all assertions in our code. >> >> J. >> -- >> >> Jarek Potiuk >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >>
