Skip to content

Conversation

@kaxil
Copy link
Member

@kaxil kaxil commented Oct 31, 2024

parse_execution_date was just calling timezone.parse, there isn't a need for it to be a separate function.

round_time wasn't used anywhere


^ 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.

@kaxil kaxil requested a review from dstandish October 31, 2024 01:17
@kaxil kaxil added the legacy api Whether legacy API changes should be allowed in PR label Oct 31, 2024
@uranusjr uranusjr added the airflow3.0:breaking Candidates for Airflow 3.0 that contain breaking changes label Oct 31, 2024
@kaxil kaxil requested a review from gopidesupavan October 31, 2024 10:24
@gopidesupavan
Copy link
Member

Tests are failing it looks like , indirect datetime reference imports.

`parse_execution_date` was just calling `timezone.parse`, there isn't a need for it to be a separate function.

`round_time` wasn't used anywhere
@kaxil
Copy link
Member Author

kaxil commented Oct 31, 2024

Remove redundant functions in airflow.utils.dates

Yeah, looks like they were bad imports :D -- fixed them in 1bf242d

@kaxil kaxil merged commit 4fcbeb5 into apache:main Oct 31, 2024
@kaxil kaxil deleted the more-cleanup branch October 31, 2024 15:49
ellisms pushed a commit to ellisms/airflow that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2024
`parse_execution_date` was just calling `timezone.parse`, there isn't a need for it to be a separate function.

`round_time` wasn't used anywhere
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

airflow3.0:breaking Candidates for Airflow 3.0 that contain breaking changes area:API Airflow's REST/HTTP API area:providers legacy api Whether legacy API changes should be allowed in PR provider:fab

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants