Hi all, TP's suggestion aligns with Omkar’s earlier proposal ( https://lists.apache.org/thread/f275xo3tjd4olsmrc8nggncs62fjnl0x). I see two main approaches:
1. Generic Python exceptions: Simple and concise, but difficult for providing nuanced diagnostic or resolution guidance in logs. 2. Custom exception hierarchy: Allows us to accumulate specific troubleshooting documentation for users. This also enables the non-breaking compatibility TP mentioned. While I previously favored simplicity, I now lean toward a structured hierarchy. In an agentic context, we could automate the maintenance of a "suggestions database" by scanning past issues. This would provide users (and agents) with clear, documented resolution steps, ultimately saving time and tokens. Best, Jarek Potiuk On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 4:19 PM Tzu-ping Chung via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > I think we can make this non-breaking entirely? We can simply raise a > subclass of both AirflowException and whatever we want to migrate to. > > If we want to, we can emit a deprecation warning if AirflowException is > imported directly by the user, but I feel even that is particularly needed. > > Raising a custom exception that’s as specific as practical is always the > best practice. Using a custom exception that subclasses both built-in and > AirflowException (but not AirflowException itself) is a good idea on its > own. > > TP > > > > On 31 May 2026, at 21:25, Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I do not have a stron opinion on this, with the past decision we mainly > wanted to ensure code is clean. > > > > For me also Option (3) would be viable: We leave existing code as it is > and just ensure that new code is clean. But I am also okay to join the > other majority opinion. > > > > Jens > > > > On 31.05.26 14:08, Sameer Mesiah wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for opening this thread. This was long overdue considering that > >> current migration efforts for AirflowException are more scattered rather > >> than a consolidated pre-planned wave. > >> > >> In general, I agree with your overall approach. But there are a few > things > >> I want to raise in response to your proposal: > >> > >> On 1) > >> > >> I think Amogh already expanded on thiss somewhat. But I believe it is > >> important to understand that AirflowException is not constrained to > >> the provider layer but often bubble up from Airflow core.For example > >> task_runner.py explicitly catches AirflowException as part of task > >> execution and retry handling, and there are also usages in the hook and > >> connection layers. > >> > >> But depending on whether we scope this to core + providers vs providers > >> only, the migration strategy looks quite different. If the intention is > >> provider-only migration, users will continue to encounter > AirflowException > >> from core Airflow components, which may make the overall exception model > >> feel somewhat inconsistent. If the intention is project-wide > deprecation, I > >> think we need a broader plan than provider-level migrations alone. > >> > >> Also, as Amogh already implied (he is free to correct me in case I > >> misinterpreted his reservations), deprecation warnings may not be > >> worthwhile here. Unlike a deprecated API or method, this is not > something > >> users are actively choosing to call. In most cases, Airflow itself is > >> deciding which exception type to raise. I am leaning against warnings > due > >> to the potential for log pollution and the relatively limited value they > >> provide. > >> > >> On 2) > >> > >> I agree with your per-package migration proposal. But as Amogh said, we > >> should ensure new exceptions inherit from AirflowException to prevent > >> breaking changes across the provider ecosystem. I must add that there > will > >> inevitably be a period where users run multiple providers, some migrated > >> and some not. This may result in a mixture of exception types appearing > in > >> logs and stack traces. While not ideal, this is probably unavoidable > given > >> independent provider versioning. As long as migrations are clearly > >> documented, I do not see this as a major issue. > >> > >> My answers to your questions: > >> > >> *Should we add a deprecation warning to AirflowException?* > >> > >> I am +0. Not strongly opposed, but I am leaning no due to the risk of > log > >> pollution and the fact that the warning would be emitted by Airflow > itself > >> rather than as a result of an explicit user action. > >> > >> *Is the per-package migration approach reasonable?* > >> > >> Yes. No blocking concerns from my side. > >> > >> *Should we define a project-wide exception taxonomy, or leave exception > >> choices to individual provider teams?* > >> > >> I would leave this to individual provider teams. The providers have very > >> different APIs, error models, and opinions around exception handling. > >> Attempting to enforce a central taxonomy across all providers may be > >> impractical and may not provide much practical value over what we > currently > >> have in place. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sameer Mesiah. > >> > >> On Sat, 30 May 2026 at 10:59, Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> This follows up on the earlier lazy-consensus > >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/m86gs4mqt8hq1n26g0pp0fq5h5g0x2q9> and > >>> related discussions around deprecating AirflowException. > >>> > >>> While working on a cleanup PR for the Google Cloud Run operator in the > >>> Google provider (#67769), Amogh pointed out that replacing > AirflowException > >>> with built-in or custom exceptions is a breaking change. Users may > rely on > >>> AirflowException in callbacks (on_failure_callback, on_retry_callback) > or > >>> in custom wrappers that catch it explicitly. > >>> > >>> Rather than making these changes incrementally across individual PRs, > I'd > >>> like to discuss a coordinated migration strategy. > >>> Proposal > >>> > >>> *1. Emit a deprecation warning from **AirflowException.__init__**.* > >>> > >>> Although emitting warnings when exceptions are raised is uncommon, it > is > >>> justified here because users may depend on AirflowException in > callbacks > >>> and exception handlers. This provides advance notice before > >>> package-specific migrations occur. > >>> > >>> *2. Migrate per package in the next breaking release of that package.* > >>> > >>> Require a single migration PR per package (airflow-core and each > provider), > >>> rather than spreading exception changes across multiple PRs and > releases. > >>> The migration would be included in that package's next breaking > release and > >>> documented accordingly. > >>> Questions > >>> > >>> - Should we add a deprecation warning to AirflowException? > >>> - Is the per-package migration approach reasonable? > >>> - Should we define a project-wide exception taxonomy, or leave > exception > >>> choices to individual provider teams? > >>> > >>> If there's agreement, I'll follow up with a lazy-consensus proposal. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> > >>> Shahar > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
