Skip to content

Make suppress_logs_and_warning CLI decorator return the wrapped result - #72600

Closed
Eason09053360 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
Eason09053360:fix-suppress-logs-decorator-return-value
Closed

Eason09053360 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
Eason09053360:fix-suppress-logs-decorator-return-value

Conversation

@Eason09053360

@Eason09053360 Eason09053360 commented Sep 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

suppress_logs_and_warning in airflow/utils/cli.py called the wrapped function on both of its branches (--verbose and not) without returning the result, so every caller received None. The other decorators stacked on CLI command functions (action_cli, providers_configuration_loaded, provide_session) all pass the return value through, so this one was the odd one out.

This is a decorator-transparency fix, not a user-facing bug fix: none of the 49 commands currently decorated (core CLI commands plus the FAB provider's users/roles commands) returns a value from its own body, and airflow/__main__.py discards the result of args.func(args). Nothing observable changes today; the change removes a trap for any future command that does return something.

The else: block is flattened because ruff rule RET505 (enabled in pyproject.toml) rejects an else after return. The body of that block is unchanged apart from the added return; the restore logic in finally still runs before the value is returned.

A parametrized test covers both branches and fails on main. It carries @pytest.mark.non_db_test_override because the test module is marked db_test at module level while this test needs no database.


Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
  • Yes — Claude Code (Fable 5.1)

Generated-by: Claude Code (Fable 5.1) following the guidelines

Every other decorator stacked on CLI command functions (action_cli,
providers_configuration_loaded, provide_session) passes the wrapped
function's return value through, but suppress_logs_and_warning called
the function on both its branches without returning it, so the caller
always received None. No command currently returns a value from its
own body, so this has no user-visible effect today; it removes a trap
for any future command that does, and keeps the decorator transparent
as functools.wraps semantics imply.
@potiuk

potiuk commented Sep 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Hello @Eason09053360 - 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 33 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 gh pr reopen <PR_NUMBER> --repo apache/airflow. Reopen the ones you are ready to follow through - keep them rebased, respond to review comments and fix failing checks.

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

@potiuk potiuk closed this Sep 25, 2026
This was referenced Sep 25, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

closed because of open PR limit Closed as a one-time step of introducing the open pull request limit

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants