Sebastian Daum
Sebastian Daum
> is there any way test the same? Yeah it would be great to have a test for it. A good test should test the current behavior in SQLAlchemy 1.4...
> is there any way test the same? > > is there any way test the same? > > Yeah it would be great to have a test for it....
> Could you also remove class from line 34, seems like it also does not used anywhere. Removed.
I would be happy to take it over.
Would be happy to take it over.
#38961 is good ✅
#38961 is good. ✅
> > Fixed but still raise a warning > > [tests/serialization/test_pydantic_models.py:162](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/15eedd080428314cf6e27443f91624459d17a77d/tests/serialization/test_pydantic_models.py#L162) > > [tests/serialization/test_pydantic_models.py:163](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/15eedd080428314cf6e27443f91624459d17a77d/tests/serialization/test_pydantic_models.py#L163) > > Could you provide what kind of error you tried to fix? Both raise the...
Oh interesting. Due to your comment I looked again in the SQL Alchemy [docs](https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/20/changelog/migration_14.html#change-5150) I thought we have enabled already SQA 2.0 style by setting future=True in the engine [here](https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/495814e908890763d9429df7ad9f4f33908fef98/airflow/settings.py#L293)...
Yes legacy backrefs should be replaced anyway by `back_populates` and explicit relationships. Yet we will still see those warnings as also with `back_populates` and an explicit relationship SQLAlchlemy 1.4 still...