Looks good to me. Personally I never ran into any issues with this so far but I agree with the issues it solves. Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 2:50 AM Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> wrote: > I am all +1 on this one. This thing gave me headaches when working on > AIP-44 and I could not understand the difference between the private > "_try_number" and the public "try_number". Thanks for simplifying it! > > This is obviously assuming it does not break anything I am not aware of :) > > On 2024/05/02 19:37:32 Daniel Standish wrote: > > TLDR > > * changing handling of try_number in > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39336 > > * no more private attr > > * no more getter that changes value based on state of task > > * no more decrementing > > * try number now only handled by scheduler > > * hope that sounds good to all of you > > > > For more detail read on... > > > > In https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/39336 I am doing some work to > > resolve some longstanding pain and frustration caused by try_number. > > > > The way we handle try_number has for quite some time been messy and > > problematic. > > > > For example, if you access `ti.try_number` and then change the state to > or > > from RUNNING, you will get a different value if you access it again! > > > > And the responsibility for managing this number has been distributed > > throughout the codebase. For example the task itself always increments > > when it starts running. But then if it defers or reschedules itself, it > > decrements it back down so that when it runs again and naively > increments, > > then it will be right again. > > > > Recently more issues have become visible as I have worked with AIP-44 > > because for example pydantic does not like private attrs and it's just > > awkward to know *what value to use* when serializing it when the TI will > > give you a different answer depending on the state of the task! > > > > And there's yet another edge case being solved in this community PR > > <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/38984#issuecomment-2090944403>. > > And then when we start looking at try history and AIP-64, it also > forces a > > look at this. > > > > So it all sounds bad and indeed it is bad but I think I have a solution. > > > > What I do is, just have the scheduler increment try_number at the moment > > when it schedules the task. It alone will have the responsibility for > > incrementing try_number. And no where will it ever be decremented. It > > will not be incremented when resuming after deferral or reschedule. And > > that's about all there is to it. > > > > I've tested it out and it works. But I'm working through many test > > failures that need to be resolved (there's lots of asserts re > try_number). > > > > One small thing I just want to point out is that if a user were > previously > > to be doing `task.run()` sort of manually without the task having been > > scheduled by the scheduler, well now their try_number won't be > > automatically incremented. Same if they just do `airflow tasks run` -- > > because now the responsibility is going to be solely with the scheduler. > > But airflow was never designed to assume that tasks will be run without > > having been scheduled, so I do not think that counts as a breaking > change. > > So I don't think that's a blocker for this. > > > > Thanks for the consideration. Let me know if you have any concerns. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >
