Skip to content

Conversation

@shohamy7
Copy link
Contributor


Related: #28790
Add docs about the Jira connection and creating dedicated UI form in the UI

^ 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.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

Copy link
Contributor

@dirrao dirrao left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure. Don't we need to verify whether the value is "false" or not? The boolean value of "false" is True

>>> bool("false")
True

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shohamy7 shohamy7 Dec 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Lee-W
You are right.
I've checked and the verify parameter type will be bool so we don't need this.
However, I wonder if this can lead to backward compatibility error. Maybe we should stick to the old mechanism that uses string instead of bool, WDYT?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer to deprecate first. We can accept both bool and string. Make the necessary adjustments under the hood. For the old style to raise deprecation warning and then remove completely in next major release.

For cases where we can't deprecate first and we can introduce breaking change directly (we prefer not to do this but if we must we can)

@shohamy7 shohamy7 force-pushed the add-docs-to-jira-connection branch from 9f51c0b to 48a5aff Compare December 29, 2023 13:14
@potiuk
Copy link
Member

potiuk commented Dec 30, 2023

@eladkal ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants