yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-698240269
> @yuqian90 Looks like more people rely on this feature, would you be able
to make a PR that restores this behavior to allow empty branch please
@kaxil please see https://g
yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-698240269
> @yuqian90 Looks like more people rely on this feature, would you be able
to make a PR that restores this behavior to allow empty branch please
@kaxil please see https://g
yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-697292157
> Regarding of what @yuqian90 said, the question is should we fix the
documentation to match the behavior (and the example) or should we fix the
behavior and the examples to match
yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-697290836
> Thanks, @yuqian90 -- If it is not much work can you create a backport PR
for this targeting v1-10-test?
Will do.
---
yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-688821173
Hi, @CatarinaSilva , yes the workaround will work
> Thanks @yuqian90 , however the logic you proposed:
>
> ```
> def needs_some_extra_task(some_bool_field, **k
yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-687530055
@kaxil will do
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
yuqian90 commented on issue #10725:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10725#issuecomment-687183058
Thanks for bringing this up. Definitely looks related to
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7276.
Let me clarify the problem first. @CatarinaSilva 's example looks like
