Repository navigation
Conversation
6edb01f to
513ac64
Compare
513ac64 to
bb9a387
Compare
Expose known worker and executor causes to infrastructure listeners and telemetry while preserving ordinary retry and clear behavior. Signed-off-by: 1fanwang <[email protected]>
bb9a387 to
6f7fa70
Compare
|
Hello @1fanwang - thank you for your contributions to Apache Airflow! The Airflow community has introduced a limit of 5 open pull requests at a time for contributors without write access to the repository. You currently have 34 open pull requests, so - as a one-time step of introducing the limit - we closed the ones where maintainers have not engaged yet:
These pull requests stay open because maintainers are already engaged in them - they count towards your limit:
This is not a judgement of you or of your changes. We never told contributors before that opening many pull requests at once was a problem, so there is nothing to feel bad about - and nothing is lost: your branches, commits and the review history stay where they are. What we ask you to do is to make your first prioritization decision: choose which of the pull requests above matter most to you, and reopen them (up to 5 open at a time, including the ones still open) with the "Reopen pull request" button or While your pull requests are waiting for review, the most valuable thing you can do is help in other ways - reviewing other contributors' pull requests, helping with issues, and taking part in the discussions on the devlist and Slack. Why we introduced the limit, what it means for you and how to reopen or restore a pull request is explained in https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/32_open_pull_request_limit.rst. Drafted-by: Claude Code (Opus 5); reviewed by @potiuk before posting |
Kubernetes can stop a healthy task without an application exception, but Airflow's failure listeners have no shared category for why it failed. Platform integrations must interpret backend-specific text to route the failure.
This implements AIP-97 Task Failure Classification. Workers and executors report an optional failure kind and diagnostic reason to infrastructure listeners. Failure metrics carry bounded category labels, and logs retain the available cause. Kubernetes classification requires documented disruption evidence; an OOM kill, worker loss or bare eviction reason remains unclassified.
Ordinary retries, clears and Dag callback context stay unchanged. This adds no configuration, schema change or replacement-attempt accounting.
Related: #66405 is the combined prototype; this PR contains only classification and reporting.
Testing Done
Current Linux/PostgreSQL runtime proof
The complete runnable workflow, fixture, and observed output cover 6f7fa704122c6263be59eba6af4bb5d4264d1997 on pinned base b6538c32c8b1cdcb7b818e174a8b09d69ae18ad6.
The run used Linux, Python 3.12, PostgreSQL, the source checkout's locked Breeze tooling, and the recorded public CI image digest. From the Airflow checkout at that commit, with its locked Breeze tooling installed, fetch the exact fixture and run:
The fixture migrated the database, executed real task bodies through the Task SDK and in-process Execution API, and compared loaded source bytes with the pinned commit. Its read-only task-state checks observed:
applicationfailedtimeoutfailedapplicationon the first attemptsuccessRaw runtime observations
The CLI exits 1 because two controls deliberately fail. The wrapper returns 0 only after checking the states, attempts, listeners, callbacks, loaded source, and actual database dialect.
This is current-source Linux/PostgreSQL CLI evidence, not a new live Kubernetes, Celery, or AWS run. The record identifies its retained raw observations, omitted host-specific setup/footer text, and normalized workspace paths.
Historical proof
The earlier Linux/PostgreSQL record remains tied to bb9a387bfdb8803e957ad6a91691962fef49578d on 63b615b252589ef49b8504f2dbe2942b543ec896. Its expected upstream test-isolation failure is a separate diagnostic, not a passing runtime suite.
The earlier macOS/SQLite CLI proof remains tied to 513ac64704e7e8b78e0123c54c82ec9b7fbf4e03.
The Linux/PostgreSQL and live Kubernetes/DogStatsD proof remains tied to 863bc207d6a052a4f5d0573ead077e803c79664f against 257fe6e85112580547374b6e6d6e5b5576155536. Its complete fixture, receipts, and raw observations retain those exact source labels.
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: GitHub Copilot CLI following the guidelines
{pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.