On 5/28/20 11:57 PM, Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We're really close to getting the OpenAPI spec merged, just one last
> question that's come up around how we should handle/represent
> dagrun.conf to triggerDagRun.
>
> Which of the these two do people prefer?
>
>
> POST /api/v1/dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{dag_run_id}
> Content-Type: application/json
>
> {
> "dag_run_id": "manual_2020-05-28T21:42:36Z",
> "execution_date": "2020-05-28T21:42:36Z",
> "conf": "{\"key\": \"value\" }"
> }
>
> OR
>
>
> POST /api/v1/dags/{dag_id}/dagRuns/{dag_run_id}
> Content-Type: application/json
>
> {
> "dag_run_id": "manual_2020-05-28T21:42:36Z",
> "execution_date": "2020-05-28T21:42:36Z",
> "conf": {"key": "value"}
> }
>
> i.e. should the schema/type of conf be a (JSON-encoded) string, or an object.
>
> I favour the later, Kamil the former. His point is that staticly typed
> languages, and Java in particular, would be hard to represent this.
> (Please correct me if I've over-simplified or misunderstood your
> argument Kamil)
If your concern is Java I can ensure it's possible to deal with the 2nd
approach, even with arbitrary complex conf. Not as short and elegant as
with Python, but doable ;). I worked with both Gson and Jackson those
support it. I'll create an example...
Kind Regards,
Stefan
