Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fix backward compatibility for DagRunInfo partition fields - #68342
Conversation
bramhanandlingala
commented
Jun 10, 2026
bramhanandlingala
commented
Jun 11, 2026
This PR addresses #68315 by restoring backward compatibility for custom timetables that construct DagRunInfo using the pre-3.2 API. A regression test has also been added to cover this behavior. Could someone please review the implementation and approve the pending workflows? Can you please review the code and merge the changes. Thanks in advance. Thank you! |
bramhanandlingala
commented
Jun 12, 2026
Fixed the CI formatting issues (ruff-format and end-of-file-fixer) and pushed the updates. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Lee-W
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll fix the blank line and then we can merge it
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request! You are invited to check our Issue Tracker for additional contributions. |
What
This PR restores backward compatibility for custom timetables that were written against Airflow 3.1.x.
Airflow 3.2 introduced
partition_dateandpartition_keyfields inDagRunInfo. Since these fields were required, existing custom timetables constructingDagRunInfowith onlyrun_afteranddata_intervalraise aTypeError, causing scheduling to stop.Why
Custom timetable DAGs fail to schedule after upgrading to Airflow 3.2.x:
raises:
This can result in DAGs showing an empty Next Run field and no scheduled DAG runs being created.
Changes
Added default
Nonevalues for:partition_datepartition_keyAdded a regression test to verify backward compatibility with the legacy
DagRunInfoconstructor.Testing
Added unit test covering construction of
DagRunInfousing the pre-3.2 API and verified default values are correctly assigned to the new partition fields.Fixes#68315
Gen-AI disclosure: I used a generative AI tool to help identify the root
cause, write tests, and draft the PR description. I reviewed, tested, and
verified all changes locally before submitting.
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: Claude following the guidelines