Skip to content

Respect maximum_page_limit in batch list endpoints - #73409

Closed
Eason09053360 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
Eason09053360:fix-batch-endpoints-max-page-limit
Closed

Eason09053360 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
Eason09053360:fix-batch-endpoints-max-page-limit

Conversation

@Eason09053360

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Why

[api] maximum_page_limit is documented as capping any limit a client asks for, but was only enforced inside LimitFilter.depends, on the query-parameter path. The two batch endpoints (POST /dags/~/dagRuns/list, POST /dags/~/dagRuns/~/taskInstances/list) read their page size from a request body, so FastAPI never invokes that dependency — an authenticated client could ask them for the whole table while the equivalent GET endpoints capped the same request. The cap arrived in #60989, which missed these two call sites.

What

  • The clamp moves into a new LimitFilter.clamp_to_maximum in common/parameters/base.py; depends delegates to it, so both entry points share one definition.
  • Both batch routes build their LimitFilter through it.
  • A test per endpoint asserts a clamped page while total_entries reports the larger unclamped count; both fail without the fix.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
  • Yes — Claude Code (Opus 5)

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5) following the guidelines

The `[api] maximum_page_limit` cap is documented as applying to any limit a
client asks for, but it was only enforced on the query-parameter path, inside
`LimitFilter.depends`. The two batch endpoints read their page size from a
request body, so FastAPI never invokes that dependency and the cap was never
applied — an authenticated client could ask these two endpoints for the whole
table while the equivalent GET endpoints capped the same request.

Giving the clamp its own name lets both entry points share one definition, so
they cannot disagree about the setting again.
@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg Bot added the area:API Airflow's REST/HTTP API label Sep 20, 2026
This was referenced Sep 25, 2026
@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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:API Airflow's REST/HTTP API 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