feat (airflowctl): transition of Variable Command

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!

[jx2lee]

closes: #45669

Known Issues

action_on_existence Not Applied in Bulk Requests:

• when performing bulk variable imports, action_on_existence parameter does not behave as expected.
• Specifically, importing variables that already exist in the system does not trigger the appropriate error handling or overwrite logic, depending on the specified action.
• This results in ambiguous outcomes, as the response lacks clear indicators of success or failure for individual items.

To address this, a separate issue has been created: #TO_BE_CONTINUED.

---

^ 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 airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
I have tested the import/export functionality, and overall, it works well.
However, I’ve encountered issue when using the action_on_existence parameter during import. Specifically, when I set it fail, overwrite, or skip, the behavior doesn’t align with expectations.

screencast.2025-05-24.16-47-53.mp4

• situation: existed variables, contained existed variables in json(to upload), import with "fail"
• expected: result.errors not empty
• actual: results.errors empty

In particular, the bulk response returns a 200 status code, but both result.success and result.errors are empty. This makes it challenging to determine if the operation was successful or if there were any issues.

Could you please advise on the following:

• Is the bulk request command functioning as intended?
• Is there a potential issue in the current code?
• Are there specific areas in the codebase I should examine to understand this behavior better?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! 🙏🏽
(Once above issue is resolved, I'll write unit tests.)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for the progress @jx2lee! If something is wrong, we should fix it on the API end. Don't need to be in the scope of this PR for sure. I am going to check your questions in detail soon and will address them.

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93
Thank you for your response and support!
As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly.
Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

[bugraoz93]

@bugraoz93 Thank you for your response and support! As you mentioned, it's appropriate to address above issue outside scope of current PR. I'll create a separate issue and link it accordingly.

Additionally, I've confirmed that the import/export commands are functioning correctly. Summary:

• I'll investigate the issue separately and create a dedicated issue with a link.
• Confirmed that the import/export commands are working as expected.

Make sense! That is the way to go. 🚀 Please cc me so I can follow up too :)

[bugraoz93]

Thanks! Great work!

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Thanks! I'll make issue, soon 👍🏽

[bugraoz93]

Small change required after a change on the API side. Could you please adopt?

[jx2lee]

@bugraoz93 Sure, I'll adopt tonight.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks, @jx2lee!