You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Anton Kumpan <an...@gmail.com> on 2020/04/22 19:26:28 UTC

[AIRFLOW-5593] Airflow REST API change proposal (not backward compatible)

Hi, I wanted to bring some attention to the AIRFLOW-5593
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-5593> Jira.
It is a proposal to utilize 'run_id' instead of 'execution_date' as
dag_runs unique identifier.
It is easier to work with "id" rather than with "date" as an id. More
details are in the Jira:  AIRFLOW-5593
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-5593>.
Since this is API breaking change, I wanted to make sure it is welcomed
before starting to work on it.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Regards,
Anton

Re: [AIRFLOW-5593] Airflow REST API change proposal (not backward compatible)

Posted by Kamil BreguĊ‚a <ka...@polidea.com>.
Hello,

We wanted to prepare a new REST API for Airflow 2.0.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-32%3A+Airflow+REST+API

In Airflow 1.10, we avoid breaking changes.

Best Regards,
Kamil

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:31 PM Anton Kumpan <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, I wanted to bring some attention to the AIRFLOW-5593
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-5593> Jira.
> It is a proposal to utilize 'run_id' instead of 'execution_date' as
> dag_runs unique identifier.
> It is easier to work with "id" rather than with "date" as an id. More
> details are in the Jira:  AIRFLOW-5593
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-5593>.
> Since this is API breaking change, I wanted to make sure it is welcomed
> before starting to work on it.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Regards,
> Anton