potiuk commented on PR #29056:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/29056#issuecomment-1399158895
> @potiuk (thanks for your kind review..!) I agree with you that exception
catch logic on dagbag will be simplified, if using just `except Exception`. so,
I reflected in the code.
>
potiuk commented on PR #29056:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/29056#issuecomment-1399157535
LGTM now. WDYT Others (@ashb @uranusjr @jedcunningham) - maybe there was a
good reason why we decided to only handle specific errors that I have not
thought about. I have a feeling that
potiuk commented on PR #29056:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/29056#issuecomment-1398494098
(it will be obvious from the stack trace that the error was in the policy
not in the DAG).
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message,
potiuk commented on PR #29056:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/29056#issuecomment-1398492336
I thik it's a good idea, but do we really need to add a new exception on
that ?
Wouldn't just directly hadling ANY Exception (instead of the specific
Exceptions we list there)
