And a general point about UI changes: https://xkcd.com/1172/ :D
Oh yeah. Very apt one :) J. On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:25 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > In terms of notice of the upcoming release, we had 2.3.0b1 announced on > this list on 15th April. > > But your underlying point remains that it is hard/impossible for everyone > to notice all changes (even those of us fortunate enough to be working on > Airflow fulltime!) so nothing is every going to perfect. But we can get > better -- but I am wary of wanting to avoid "design by committee" (which > I've never seen end well) > > And a general point about UI changes: https://xkcd.com/1172/ :D > > -ash > > > > On Thu, May 5 2022 at 02:59:03 -0700, Kevin Yang <yrql...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks Jarek, it's very good learning for me > hearing very different feelings about things in Airflow. Our divergence may > come a lot from that. > > 1. We don't feel that strongly against the tree view (or we just got > used to it). This may be because of how we use Airflow--we still use > Airflow primarily for the traditional relative static offline data > pipelines > 2. I personally am not 100% convinced that we can bring it to absolute > par with the tree view like how we fix a bug given their foundational > differences. (But I really hope so) > > I agree that sometimes we need to shape our user needs/habits (thanks to > Apple for removing my AUX jack 🙂). And taking more ambitious moves with > good intention should be warranted in appropriate cases. It just wasn't > justified as one of the cases in my book, but if the majority of the > community agrees differently then I shall comply. > > Similarly, I think we differ in how we view the trade off between gains > from Dynamic Task Group and the tree view. For us, it would unlikely be a > slight delay/effort to migrate and I didn't notice overwhelmingly positive > responses through my lens. This can totally be me missing information from > the community and I shall comply with our collective decision. > > > About when/where to raise concerns, agree we can do better. I didn't keep > a good track of what will be included in each release and missed the voting > thread and window--I should've asked someone from our team to do it when I > was on vacation. I did realize it will be an replacement, quoting my last > comment in the PR: > >> But with the current implementation (+ optional partial graph view), I'm >> not convinced that it should be a replacement of the existing tree view, >> but rather a nice additional table view in our collections to better serve >> some use cases, e.g. task group heavy DAGs. > > And then I had the impression that Brent will show us some updates > addressing the concern when they are completed--then I lost track of the > discussion. I agree with you, I should've raised my concern here in the dev > mailing list earlier given how I consider it as an impactful change--I will > do that going forward. > > Though to be honest, we are moving quite fast and I cannot guarantee I'll > always be able to keep track of the changes or seize the 72 hrs windows and > finish all evaluation/testing/benchmarking/etc. Some > trial/pilot/baking/grace period where I get more time to react would be > much appreciated, in this case maybe a co-existing period for the views and > a deprecation warning. Staying on an earlier release is indeed a valid > alternative solution, though that might mean a bigger upgrade later, missed > opportunity to sell grid view to our users while they still have tree view > to fall back to and later access to other fixes/nice features we added > while catching up. > > > And yes, let's continue our github discussion on more specific use cases. > > > Cheers, > Kevin Y > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 5:12 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> > Replacing one of the most used interfaces is a pretty big deal. I like >> the grid view but it is not a superset of tree view, thus user workflows >> can break with the change. Yes we can argue that people can update their >> workflow and get used to it. But I'm not quite sure "we changed it to this, >> get used to it" is always the best approach we take to make Airflow a >> success when it's not strictly an improvement. >> >> My opinion: >> >> Let's work on improving it to be better and respond to the needs. >> >> I think not everyone has to move to 2.3.0 immediately and we have an >> opportunity to bring it to absolute "par" with the tree-view (minus all the >> oddities of the TreeView which we all knew about). I consider the current >> 2.3.0 version a little "buggy" Tree view replacement. "Buggy" in the sense >> it does not respond well to all the needs. and we will "fix" those needs in >> the coming 2.3.* releases. Yes, that's a little over-interpretation of >> "bug", I know. But this is how I think about it because the TreeView had so >> little sense in general, that we had no idea what and how people used some >> of its properties and we could not make a viable replacement without >> repeating the nonsense behaviour. And yes. Removing Grid View will make our >> users more eager to actually report problems they see with the new Grid >> View, knowing they have no other option. And yes - this is a little >> "manipulation" with the users of ours, but one that has very good >> intentions. And I understand users will complain. Tough. We should bite the >> bullet for a good cause. You just cannot make everyone happy when you build >> a product, sometimes you have to "shape" your user needs as well, "forcing" >> the users to adapt if previous choices made no sense. >> >> There is not much we can do now for the TreeView, we can't bring it back >> without huge effort of making it compatible with Dynamic Task Mapping >> (which is another reason why it's good we dropped it). I'd say it was a >> great decision to drop it in this context, because if we did not, the >> highly demanded dynamic task mapping would have taken a lot longer to >> deliver (and it already took an enormous effort). So I personally >> absolutely support this decision. No slightest doubt about it. If I >> consider "slight" delays in migration of people/companies who need to >> adjust their workflows, compared to overwhelmingly positive response to the >> new Dynamic Task mapping and opportunities it opens, this is quite >> incomparable. And for me - clear winner is - yes let's take the "backlash" >> work on improving the UI based on the feedback, but we should not let the >> old view which had plenty of problems hold us back. Yep. Some "older users" >> will have to bite the bullet, but if we work with them and respond to their >> needs BEFORE they get to actually migrate to 2.3 line, we are good. And >> that should be our goal. >> >> I think those users can still move to 2.2.5 while we adjust grid view to >> better respond to the needs of those users. Anyhow - the main reason to >> migrate to 2.3 will be to use Dynamic Task Mapping. And if you don't want >> to use dynamic task mapping now, staying on 2.2.5 until we catch-up, is a >> good idea. I think trying to keep the Tree View working with all the new >> changes would be next to impossible. >> >> However, I think indeed we probably missed the discussions and PRs and I >> think what we actually missed was an earlier discussion on it here in the >> devlist. On the other hand the discussion mostly happened here and in >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/18675 with a lot of arguments and >> it was clear from the beginning that the solution is to "replace" Tree View >> with the "New Tree view" which was later renamed to "Grid View". Anyone who >> was discussing it, could have raised the doubts here before (I personally >> did not think there was a case for that as I consider UI as mostly an >> "add-on" to the actual scheduler "core". It's a little late to raise the >> concerns on the devlist now, I think. >> >> I see you commented on it Kevin so I would love to understand - did you >> not realise it was going to be a replacement (I took part and I knew >> perfectly well it was going to be replacement)? Was it not clear? It's >> interesting to see why - if there were concerns - no-one brought it before? >> I'd love to understand so that we can avoid any problems like that in the >> future. Can you share your view on it? >> >> Maybe it was not entirely clear that replacing is going to happen. Maybe >> the authors and people who drove the idea could have raised it here >> anticipating it needs a more detailed devlist discussion. Maybe people who >> had concerns about it should do that if the original authors did not >> realise it's "really important to discuss here". Maybe that's a sign that >> we should pay more attention to UI changes in the future and always make >> sure to post such changes here. Let's focus on what we can do better. >> >> I think we should focus on answering this question and making the new >> Tree View respond better to the needs of the users now. And I really hope >> those users will be (they already are) helping in explaining how they found >> the Tree View missing and what they miss in the Grid View. >> >> From the current discussion it's really clear that two things are >> missing: https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/23413: >> >> * expanding subtrees of groups >> * differentiating task groups from tasks >> * ability to quickly see/navigate immediate downstream/possibly upstream >> dependencies of a task you are focused on >> >> I'd really love to see more users' comments on those uses, and raise >> concrete "I want to be able to do this" rather than "I want my Tree View >> back". >> >> J. >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 6:12 AM Kevin Yang <yrql...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the pointer. I'll move the comments from the PR to the github >>> discussion and continue usage/technical discussion there. In the meantime, >>> I'd like to discuss a bit on what is the best way to release such change. >>> >>> Replacing one of the most used interfaces is a pretty big deal. I like >>> the grid view but it is not a superset of tree view, thus user workflows >>> can break with the change. Yes we can argue that people can update their >>> workflow and get used to it. But I'm not quite sure "we changed it to this, >>> get used to it" is always the best approach we take to make Airflow a >>> success when it's not strictly an improvement. >>> >>> I do understand that we want to move fast. But as an established project >>> widely used by many companies in production to power their business, we can >>> maybe at the same time give more buffer for such change and incorporate >>> more feedback. Like how we do deprecation, give people some time to react. >>> People would naturally move to it if they find themselves much more >>> productive using it. >>> >>> DAG versioning is very nice and I want it badly too. However I see it >>> depends on the grid view but not the deprecation of tree view--we can >>> always claim that tree view does not support versioning, another soft push >>> for people to use grid view 😁 >>> >>> Hope I'm making sense, looking forward to hearing your thoughts. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kevin Y >>> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 12:19 PM Brent Bovenzi >>> <br...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Seconding what Jarek said. Please comment in that github discussion. I >>>> would very much like to get feedback and then iterate the UI much faster >>>> than before. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 3:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I personally don't think so. >>>>> >>>>> People will have to get used to it. It's far superior. And backlash is >>>>> expected. >>>>> >>>>> I would rather read and focus on what's there to make it respond to >>>>> the needs of users than have it in parallel with Tree view. Discussion >>>>> already started here >>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions/23413 and I'd say we >>>>> should do everything to figure out what people REALLY miss in the Grid >>>>> View >>>>> comparing to Tree view and iterate on it and add it (And from earlier >>>>> discussions with Brent, I think this is the plan). >>>>> >>>>> The Tree view held us back like crazy. >>>>> >>>>> The biggest problem with Tree view was that DAG versioning effort was >>>>> (I believe) held back by it because it was next to impossible to think of >>>>> "versioning" when Tree view was there. >>>>> >>>>> This is a bold move - but very much needed and even overdue I think. >>>>> >>>>> J. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 9:05 PM Kevin Yang <yrql...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey guys sorry I saw this thread late--was on vacation last week. >>>>>> >>>>>> I noticed that we made a bold move replacing the tree view with the >>>>>> new grid view. I like the new grid view, but given the open discussion >>>>>> in this >>>>>> PR <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/18675> and popularity of >>>>>> tree view (in our use case it's visited 13x times more than graph view), >>>>>> should we consider making it an *addition* for now rather than >>>>>> *replacement*? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 9:48 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (binding) - Big milestone since 2.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 09:24, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fanatic -> fantastic work... Seems like some drag&drop issue with >>>>>>>> my Chrome :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> J >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:21 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > +1 (binding). Checked signatures, licences, checksums. All looks >>>>>>>> good. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > There is a TON of cool stuff in this release. I am confident it's >>>>>>>> > ready to get to the hands of our users after all the fanatic >>>>>>>> plenty of >>>>>>>> > people put in it. Just two things that I think deserve >>>>>>>> highlighting: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > * There is the obvious Dynamic Task Mapping (which is the >>>>>>>> highlight of >>>>>>>> > it - Ash and TP particularly - but all the other people who >>>>>>>> tested it >>>>>>>> > have spent countless hours on it and it is life- and future- >>>>>>>> changing >>>>>>>> > for Airflow). >>>>>>>> > * I particularly like the new Grid View. It will take people a >>>>>>>> bit of >>>>>>>> > getting used to the new screen - so this is a bit of a bold move >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> > there will be backlash I am sure. But I am quite confident it is >>>>>>>> soooo >>>>>>>> > much better and makes Airflow 2.3 finally showing up the modern UI >>>>>>>> > approach as well (After all the internal modernization) . >>>>>>>> > Brent and the team - big Kudos for all the work there and the >>>>>>>> boldness >>>>>>>> > in rethinking this one from grounds-up :). >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > J. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:28 PM Vikram Koka >>>>>>>> > <vik...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Dynamic Task Mapping is a huge improvement! >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:34 AM Josh Fell < >>>>>>>> josh.d.f...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> Dynamic Task Mapping feels life-changing. >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:41 PM Abhishek Bhakat >>>>>>>> <abhishek.bha...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> Other than that issue, have tested the version and would like >>>>>>>> to change my vote to +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 9:49 PM Elad Kalif < >>>>>>>> elad...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> +1 (binding) >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:34 PM Dennis Akpenyi < >>>>>>>> dennisakpe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>> On Fri 29. Apr 2022 at 17:30, Brent Bovenzi >>>>>>>> <br...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:13 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor < >>>>>>>> a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, the same issue is fine. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My point is that since this is no worse in 2.3.0rc2 than >>>>>>>> it was in 2.2.5 it shouldn't stop the release of 2.3.0. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ash >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:28:49 +0530, Abhishek Bhakat >>>>>>>> <abhishek.bha...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am facing this issue with 2.3.0rc2. I did make a >>>>>>>> comment on the same issue. Shall I create another issue for 2.3.0rc2 ? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:20 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < >>>>>>>> a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Abhishek, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The issue you have linked to says the version that >>>>>>>> happens is in 2.2.5, so since this isn't a regression in 2.3 I'd ask >>>>>>>> if you >>>>>>>> could remove your -1 vote? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29 2022 at 20:13:31 +0530, Abhishek Bhakat >>>>>>>> <abhishek.bha...@astronomer.io.INVALID> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> An issue with parsing dynamic tasks, causes the >>>>>>>> scheduler to crash. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/23361 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:58 PM Collin McNulty >>>>>>>> <col...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Made and ran several test DAGs using mapped tasks. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:54 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor < >>>>>>>> a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 binding. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27 2022 at 21:50:48 +0100, Ephraim >>>>>>>> Anierobi <ephraimanier...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hey fellow Airflowers, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have cut Airflow 2.3.0rc2. This email is calling a >>>>>>>> vote on the release, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> which will last for 72 hours, from Wednesday, April >>>>>>>> 27, 2022, at 08:48 pm UTC >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> until Saturday, April 30, 2022, at 08:48 pm UTC, and >>>>>>>> until 3 binding +1 votes have been received. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Airflow 2.3.0rc2 is available at: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/2.3.0rc2/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *apache-airflow-2.3.0-source.tar.gz* is a source >>>>>>>> release that comes with INSTALL instructions. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *apache-airflow-2.3.0.tar.gz* is the binary Python >>>>>>>> "sdist" release. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *apache_airflow-2.3.0-py3-none-any.whl* is the binary >>>>>>>> Python wheel "binary" release. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Public keys are available at: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please vote accordingly: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but all >>>>>>>> members of the community >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> are encouraged to test the release and vote with >>>>>>>> "(non-binding)". >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The test procedure for PMCs and Contributors who would >>>>>>>> like to test this RC are described in >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_AIRFLOW.md\#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmcs >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the `rcX` >>>>>>>> string, so it's now >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> simply 2.3.0. This will allow us to rename the >>>>>>>> artifact without modifying >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Release Notes: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/2.3.0rc2/RELEASE_NOTES.rst >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> New features since 2.2.5: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add dynamic task mapping ( >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Amerged+label%3AAIP-42+milestone%3A%22Airflow+2.3.0%22 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - New Grid View replaces Tree View (#18675) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Templated ``requirements.txt`` in Python Operators >>>>>>>> (#17349) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Allow reuse of decorated tasks (#22941) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Move the database configuration to a new section >>>>>>>> (#22284) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``SmoothOperator`` (#22813) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Make operator's ``execution_timeout`` configurable >>>>>>>> (#22389) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Events Timetable (#22332) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Support dag serialization with custom ``ti_deps`` >>>>>>>> rules (#22698) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Support log download in task log view (#22804) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - support for continue backfill on failures (#22697) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``dag-processor`` cli command (#22305) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add possibility to create users in LDAP mode (#22619) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``ignore_first_depends_on_past`` for scheduled >>>>>>>> jobs (#22491) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Update base sensor operator to support XCOM return >>>>>>>> value (#20656) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add an option for run id in the ui trigger screen >>>>>>>> (#21851) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Enable JSON serialization for connections (#19857) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add REST API endpoint for bulk update of DAGs >>>>>>>> (#19758) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add queue button to click-on-DagRun interface. >>>>>>>> (#21555) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``list-import-errors`` to ``airflow dags`` >>>>>>>> command (#22084) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Store callbacks in database if >>>>>>>> ``standalone_dag_processor`` config is True. (#21731) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add LocalKubernetesExecutor (#19729) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``celery.task_timeout_error`` metric (#21602) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Airflow ``db downgrade`` cli command (#21596) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``ALL_SKIPPED`` trigger rule (#21662) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``db clean`` CLI command for purging old data >>>>>>>> (#20838) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``celery_logging_level`` (#21506) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Support different timeout value for dag file parsing >>>>>>>> (#21501) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Support generating SQL script for upgrades (#20962) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add option to compress Serialized dag data (#21332) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Branch python operator decorator (#20860) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add Audit Log View to Dag View (#20733) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add missing StatsD metric for failing SLA Callback >>>>>>>> notification (#20924) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add ``ShortCircuitOperator`` configurability for >>>>>>>> respecting downstream trigger rules (#20044) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Allow using Markup in page title in Webserver >>>>>>>> (#20888) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add Listener Plugin API that tracks TaskInstance >>>>>>>> state changes (#20443) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add context var hook to inject more env vars (#20361) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add a button to set all tasks to skipped (#20455) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Cleanup pending pods (#20438) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add config to warn public deployment exposure in UI >>>>>>>> (#18557) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Log filename template records (#20165) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Added windows extensions (#16110) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Showing approximate time until next dag_run in >>>>>>>> Airflow (#20273) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Extend config window on UI (#20052) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add show dag dependencies feature to CLI (#19985) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add cli command for 'airflow dags reserialize` >>>>>>>> (#19471) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add missing description field to Pool schema(REST >>>>>>>> API) (#19841) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Introduce DagRun action to change state to queued. >>>>>>>> (#19353) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add DAG run details page (#19705) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Add role export/import to cli tools (#18916) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Adding ``dag_id_pattern`` parameter to the ``/dags`` >>>>>>>> endpoint (#18924) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ephraim >>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>> -- >>>>>>>> > >>>>> Dr. Dennis Akpenyi, Airflow Core Developer, Astronomer Inc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
