-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add dry run for backfill #45062
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add dry run for backfill #45062
Conversation
a7a1efd
to
d288934
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed with daniel, maybe a separate endpoint makes more sense to avoid mixed returned type BackfillResponse | BackfillDryRunResponse
on the same endpoint. That's hard to handle for clients.
class BackfillRunInfo(BaseModel): | ||
"""Data model for run information during a backfill operation.""" | ||
|
||
logical_date: datetime |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We will only have logical date, no data interval?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since the logical date is a datetime, so for example for DAGs with schedules other than daily, the response will still include the dates on which the backfill will be triggered. I imagine that the user likely has an understanding of the dag's schedule when making a backfill request. Does including the data interval provide additional value in this context?
) | ||
backfill_response_item = [] | ||
print(info_list) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need to remove print statements
Closes #44395
Response: