Allow secrets redact function to have different redaction than ***
#53977
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
Author
|
@pierrejeambrun As discussed. |
pierrejeambrun
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2025
Member
pierrejeambrun
left a comment
pierrejeambrun
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool. Are you taking care of the follow up PR to enable it for the API ?
Member
Author
🤷🏻 Hadn't thought that far ahead :D |
ashb
force-pushed
the
changable-redact-replacment-chars
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0e382d6 to
bb5cc0f
Compare
amoghrajesh
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2025
Contributor
amoghrajesh
left a comment
amoghrajesh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One comment, rest looks good.
ashb
force-pushed
the
changable-redact-replacment-chars
branch
from
bb5cc0f to
8ee0ebb
Compare
Member
Author
|
Sorry for the meta-programming sins I have committed here. |
mobuchowski
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2025
pierrejeambrun
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2025
Member
Compat code looks good. Not sure we have any other option at the moment. |
eladkal
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2025
For logs, using `***` is fine, but as part of the changes introduced in apache#53943 we decided it might be nice to use an even-less-frequently-appearing thing than `***` so we can detect modified secrets. This gives us the ability to do that at the redaction layer
ashb
force-pushed
the
changable-redact-replacment-chars
branch
from
66ebf1b to
e2e6aa3
Compare
vincbeck
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2025
40 tasks
ferruzzi
pushed a commit
to aws-mwaa/upstream-to-airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
…pache#53977) * Allow secrets redact function to have different redaction than `***` For logs, using `***` is fine, but as part of the changes introduced in apache#53943 we decided it might be nice to use an even-less-frequently-appearing thing than `***` so we can detect modified secrets. This gives us the ability to do that at the redaction layer * Deal with OpenLineage subclassing SecretsMasker class
fweilun
pushed a commit
to fweilun/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2025
…pache#53977) * Allow secrets redact function to have different redaction than `***` For logs, using `***` is fine, but as part of the changes introduced in apache#53943 we decided it might be nice to use an even-less-frequently-appearing thing than `***` so we can detect modified secrets. This gives us the ability to do that at the redaction layer * Deal with OpenLineage subclassing SecretsMasker class
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For logs, using
***is fine, but as part of the changes introduced in #53943we decided it might be nice to use an even-less-frequently-appearing thing
than
***so we can detect modified secrets.This gives us the ability to do that at the redaction layer
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.