You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@airflow.apache.org by "raghavan-arvind (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2026/08/13 23:52:26 UTC
[PR] Ignore stale executor success when a deferred task has resumed to running [airflow]
raghavan-arvind opened a new pull request, #71579:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/71579
(Summary to follow.)
Follow-up to #66431 and #68741: extends the resume-after-defer guard in `_process_executor_events` to the running state, for triggers that fire immediately after deferral.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] Ignore stale executor success when a deferred task has resumed to running [airflow]
Posted by "raghavan-arvind (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
raghavan-arvind commented on PR #71579:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/71579#issuecomment-5297314310
cc: @ashb from #66431, another one in the chain :(. I wonder if we want to just drop the event entirely if `state == SUCCESS` and `next_method is not None` (i.e. deferred), at this point, this event has nothing to do with the status of this task. We could also keep parity with above, add "RESTARTING" to this block as well.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] Ignore stale executor success when a deferred task has resumed to running [airflow]
Posted by "Pedrinhonitz (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Pedrinhonitz commented on PR #71579:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/71579#issuecomment-5620051595
Just for the record, I’m leaving my question here as well.
Can we guarantee that the combination of `RUNNING` and `next_method != None` never corresponds to a legitimate success result from the current attempt's executor?
If that is the case, we could simply ignore the erroneous execution.
Wouldn't it be more robust to consider an alternative that uses an ID associated with the execution? I provided more details on this in #72767
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org