> Recently, a method was added `to_json_dict` which gives the json repr.

This method is internal method which use in
1. Connection Serialisation, and it is a replacement *to_dict* method which
was used before https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/35723
2. Use in public method *as_json*

Personally I do not have any personal preference for the naming but if it
help to reduce confusion than: "why not?".

*as_json* doesn't include in any released version of Airflow, so we could
easily change it without any breaking changes:
- get_uri -> to_uri_repr,  and deprecate get_uri
- as_json -> to_json_repr, we don't need to deprecate anything if it added
before 2.8.0




On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 18:47, Daniel Standish
<daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote:

> Just some history ...  and a renaming suggestion...
>
> When get_uri was added, generating the connection URI was a real pain, and
> Airflow provided no way to generate one, and JSON repr was not yet
> implemented.  By adding get_uri, a user could define the connection object
> we needed in python, and airflow would give us the URI we needed to set in
> our env vars.  This was the only purpose.
>
> I don't think at the time I saw the potential for confusion with the
> sqlalchemy URI.  In hindsight, get_uri may not be the best name.  Recently,
> a method was added `to_json_dict` which gives the json repr.  Maybe we
> should rename get_uri to be consistent and more indicative of the
> intention.
>
> We could rename it `to_uri_str`.  Or, maybe better we could make the names
> consistent and do `to_json_repr` and `to_uri_repr`.  Or something like
> that?  @andrey WDYT?  Adding the _repr suffix may help indicate that this
> is the URI (or json) representation of the airflow connection object.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:52 PM Tzu-ping Chung <t...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Some context: I’ve been looking into putting the Connection URI to more
> > use, most importantly to consolidate it with OpenLineage’s URI format.
> >
> > Skipping the details, one of the conclusions I had is get_uri on
> > Connection is not actually that useful, due to how different libraries
> > (SQLAlchemy, Airflow Object Store, OpenLineage, etc.) have drastically
> > different URI formats, and it is not practical to implement get_uri in
> > Connection to be compatible with all of them. The correct layer to
> generate
> > a connection URI is in hooks instead, and the format does not need to be
> > visible to the user, but internal between the hook and whatever library
> it
> > talks to, since the URI semantics are too specific to a library to be
> > generally useful as a serde format.
> >
> > Therefore I think deprecating the URI Connection representation would not
> > be harmful, except maybe the URI can be more useful in simplistic cases.
> >
> >
> > > On 27 Nov 2023, at 12:21, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > A little late to the party here but convinced by what Daniel had to
> say.
> > >
> > > I am ok with the idea of adding this into the deprecation bucket in the
> > > coming time.
> > >
> > > Implementing the get_uri in the hook seems quite reasonable to me
> > > on the grounds that the Connection class' get_uri is meant to be
> general,
> > > supporting the use case of serializing the Airflow connection on basis
> of
> > > host, port, schema, password, type etc.
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Amogh Desai
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 9:56 PM Daniel Standish
> > > <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> I still think different people have different expectations of the
> > Airflow
> > >>> URI format. My expectation is that this is only a SerDe mechanism
> > around
> > >>> Airflow Connection. If we have a look at the codebase of Airflow we
> > found
> > >>> that this is not always true and we try to use it as SA URI.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yes, this is in my view exactly the problem.  I believe we run into
> > trouble
> > >> only when we falsely think that we should be able to define an Airflow
> > >> connection using, say, a jdbc connection string. It's not true in
> > general.
> > >>
> > >> Observe that DbApiHook has a get_uri
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/064fc2b7751a44e37ccce97609cff7c496098e56/airflow/providers/common/sql/hooks/sql.py#L188-L196
> > >>>
> > >> method.
> > >>
> > >> This method is used to produce a connection string valid for the
> service
> > >> you're connecting to, and importantly it may be different from the
> > >> Connection.get_uri.
> > >>
> > >> The primary responsibility of Airflow connection URI is to serialize
> the
> > >> airflow connection object which has type, login, pass, host, schema
> > port,
> > >> extra and that's it.  For simple cases it can serve both purposes but
> > it's
> > >> not true in general and folks need to understand that.
> > >>
> > >> I think part of the problem may simply be that `uri` is an argument of
> > the
> > >> Connection object. It means not the connection string but the airflow
> > conn
> > >> URI serialization.  Would probably be a good candidate for deprecation
> > >> on the basis that it is confusing.
> > >>
> > >> Fundamentally, as a hook designer, if you need a conn string that is a
> > URI,
> > >> you must implement get_uri on the hook in the right way to be able to
> > >> use the attributes available to you in Connection.  Connection.get_uri
> > will
> > >> handle creating the Airflow Conn URI serialization and that's a
> separate
> > >> thing.
> > >>
> > >> The connection object has no clue how to generate a valid connection
> > string
> > >> for your service, but the hook can have this understanding.
> > >>
> > >> There are many examples in the codebase where users implement get_uri
> on
> > >> the hook and it works just fine.  A hook author could write it so you
> > can
> > >> optionally dump the full connection string in the extra object:
> > {"extra":
> > >> {"uri": "blah"}}.
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to