Fix ASYNC240 rule findings #61418

Activity

1. jscheffl

   added this to CI / DEV ENV planned workon Feb 3, 2026
2. jscheffl

   added the

   Task

   issue type on Feb 3, 2026
3. jscheffl

   added

   kind:bugThis is a clearly a bugThis is a clearly a bug

   area:dev-tools

   good first issue

   on Feb 3, 2026
4. dosubot

   added

   area:core

   on Feb 3, 2026
5. js0547 commented on Feb 4, 2026

   

   js0547

   on Feb 4, 2026

   More actions

   @jscheffl I’d like to pick this up as a first contribution if that’s okay.
6. sawantbandita commented on Feb 4, 2026

   

   sawantbandita

   on Feb 4, 2026

   Contributor

   More actions

   Hi! I’m a beginner contributor and very interested in working on this issue as well. I’m happy to collaborate or take on part of the ASYNC240 fixes (e.g. identifying affected files or preparing patches/tests). Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.
7. v4xsh commented on Feb 4, 2026

   

   v4xsh

   on Feb 4, 2026

   More actions

   Hi @jscheffl I’d like to work on this. I’ve looked into the ASYNC240 rule and the discussion regarding the dependency quorum for Airflow 3.

   The issue is that pathlib methods like .exists() and .is_file() are synchronous and block the event loop when called inside async functions. To re-enable the rule, we need to offload these calls to a thread or use an async filesystem wrapper.

   Regarding the library choice mentioned in the description:

   • AnyIO: We could use anyio.to_thread.run_sync to wrap the pathlib calls. This is a surgical fix that doesn't require a full filesystem refactor.
   • Trio/Aiofiles: These provide native async path objects but would add a more significant dependency for the core.

   I’m happy to implement whichever approach the maintainers prefer to get this rule re-enabled.
8. jscheffl commented on Feb 4, 2026

   

   jscheffl

   on Feb 4, 2026

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Thanks for the analysis. I am not a deep enought asyncio expert. Any opinions from other experts? @potiuk @ashb @dstandish @dabla ??
9. v4xsh commented on Feb 5, 2026

   

   v4xsh

   on Feb 5, 2026

   More actions

   Thanks for the feedback!

   Agreed — this probably needs a maintainer call before locking in an approach. From my side, I don’t have a strong preference yet and would follow whatever direction the core team recommends.

   That said, if a low-risk default is helpful for discussion: anyio.to_thread.run_sync feels like the smallest surface-area change to unblock ASYNC240 without introducing a new async filesystem abstraction. But I’m very happy to wait for guidance from @potiuk, @ashb, @dstandish, or @dabla before moving forward.

   Let me know how you’d like to proceed.
10. jscheffl commented on Feb 5, 2026

    

    jscheffl

    on Feb 5, 2026

    ContributorAuthor

    More actions

    I now had time to look to trio and anyio. I think both are valid but anyio seems to be a bit stronger maintained. If nobody has another opinion in the next 24 hours I'd propose to go with anyio. Anyio has less dependencies.

    Other opinions welcome!
11. andreahlert

    added a commit that references this issue on Feb 7, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls in async functions wi…

    ...

    This issue will close once commit 55eb66b is merged into the 'main' branch.

    55eb66b
12. jscheffl

    added a commit that references this issue on Feb 8, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (#61616)

    ...

    This issue will close once commit 0681126 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    0681126
13. jscheffl

    closed this as completedin #61616on Feb 8, 2026
14. github-project-automation

    moved this to Done in CI / DEV ENV planned workon Feb 8, 2026
15. jhgoebbert

    added a commit that references this issue on Feb 8, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit a90ebd3 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    a90ebd3
16. Ratasa143

    added a commit that references this issue on Feb 15, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit 72b9e98 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    72b9e98
17. choo121600

    added a commit that references this issue on Feb 22, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit ccc8ec2 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    ccc8ec2
18. AkshayArali

    added a commit that references this issue on Feb 27, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit 30e9c3b is merged into the 'main' branch.

    30e9c3b
19. Subham-KRLX

    added a commit that references this issue on Mar 4, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit e513906 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    e513906
20. dominikhei

    added a commit that references this issue on Mar 11, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit a6c568d is merged into the 'main' branch.

    a6c568d
21. Ankurdeewan

    added a commit that references this issue on Mar 15, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit 88f86d7 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    88f86d7
22. radhwene

    added a commit that references this issue on Mar 21, 2026

    Fix ASYNC240: replace blocking filesystem calls with anyio (apache#61616

    ...

    This issue will close once commit a8b50f1 is merged into the 'main' branch.

    a8b50f1