Stop presenting multi-team tagged metrics as an exhaustive list - #71523
Merged
o-nikolas merged 1 commit intoAug 13, 2026
Merged
Conversation
o-nikolas
reviewed
Aug 13, 2026
o-nikolas
left a comment
o-nikolas
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've never really loved this being an authoritative and exhaustive source of the metrics which are team-ified. I think the best place is to just look at the code (easy task for any modern agent). We're just going to be stuck updating these docs constantly as they inevitably become out of date as changes happen. Can we just this to just mention a handful of metrics and then a "..., etc."? Or maybe have a Note that says this isn't an exhaustive list?
The list read as an authoritative enumeration of every metric carrying a team_name tag, so it drifts out of date as metrics change and misleads anyone building dashboards or alerts from it. A stale entry naming a callback failure counter that is never emitted is the symptom that surfaced the problem. Readers need to know which areas of Airflow carry the tag; the emission sites in the source are the right authority for individual metric names.
ramitkataria
force-pushed
the
ramitkataria/multi-team-callback-metric-name
branch
from
August 13, 2026 01:27
48a5ba6 to
3424a53
Compare
ramitkataria
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
That makes sense. I've updated the PR |
vincbeck
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2026
uros-b
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2026
o-nikolas
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2026
dabla
pushed a commit
to dabla/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2026
…he#71523) The list read as an authoritative enumeration of every metric carrying a team_name tag, so it drifts out of date as metrics change and misleads anyone building dashboards or alerts from it. A stale entry naming a callback failure counter that is never emitted is the symptom that surfaced the problem. Readers need to know which areas of Airflow carry the tag; the emission sites in the source are the right authority for individual metric names.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The list read as an authoritative enumeration of every metric carrying a team_name tag, so it drifts out of date as metrics change and misleads anyone building dashboards or alerts from it. A stale entry naming a callback failure counter that is never emitted is the symptom that surfaced the problem.
Readers need to know which areas of Airflow carry the tag; the emission sites in the source are the right authority for individual metric names.
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
{pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.