While I think "system" tests use case is indeed - as Daniel wrote - not a good reason, I find it intriguing as a "commenting out" things from DAG. Sounds like a useful authoring feature to have a "never" trigger rule.
The "callable" use case is likely a bit too much - we've been discussing "flexible" triggering rule, but since they are part of the scheduler hot-loop, it's likely not a good idea to make them "editable" by the users, and certainly not a good idea to have the code on trigger rules controlled by DAG author (it would mean that code submitted by DAG author would be executable in scheduler context) - we could make it possible via plugins, but IMHO having freely configurable triggering rules is quite a bit too much of a freedom.. J. On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:44 PM Daniel Standish <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > It doesn't really sound right to include the task in the system test dag, > purely for the purpose of getting it into the docs. Why just put it in the > docs as an inline example? > > If you want to conditionally run certain tasks, one option is to raise > AirflowSkipException >
