+1 On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 12:35, Tomasz Urbaszek <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for this idea. > > Should we provide some way of validating existing connections so users can > check this before upgrading to 3.0? > > Thanks, > Tomek > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 10:14, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm all for this. >> >> What does this mean for the extra and extra_dejson attrs that exist on >> Connection right now? >> >> -a >> >> On Thu, Feb 24 2022 at 23:23:20 -0800, Daniel Standish >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's generally assumed that the `extra` field in airflow's Connection >> model is JSON string. However, it's not, strictly speaking, *required* >> to be so. >> >> I believe we should require it to be JSON. >> >> But I also think we should nudge this a tiny bit further. A python >> string value such as '"hi"' contains a valid json string "hi". And >> similarly the string '[0,2,3]' is _also_ a valid string. But this is not >> at all what is intended for `extra` and, I think for pretty obvious >> reasons, a bad idea. So I think we should _also_ require that the value >> for `extra`, if provided, must be json that parses as a python _dict_. >> >> So, to summarize, the proposal is, from release 3.0, require that conn >> `extra` be json (or None) and require that the json (if provided) must >> parse as a dict. >> >> PR to implement deprecation as prescribed by the proposal is here >> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/21816>. >> >> This vote will run until Tuesday at 8am UTC (three full weekdays). >> >> Thanks for your consideration. >> >>
