migrating-dagster-to-airflow

作者: astronomer

將 Dagster 專案遷移至 Astro 上的 Apache Airflow 3 的指南。當使用者提到將 Dagster(或 Dagster+)程式碼遷移、轉換或移植至…時使用。

npx skills add https://github.com/astronomer/agents --skill migrating-dagster-to-airflow

Dagster → Airflow 3 (Astro) migration

Migrate a Dagster project to Airflow 3 on Astro Runtime, honestly. The migration is asset-first (Dagster asset graphs translate to Airflow assets and asset-aware schedules, not flattened DAGs), incremental (domain by domain, Dagster stays authoritative until parity), and honest (every definition gets an explicit disposition; semantic deltas are documented, never papered over).

First time driving this? Read reference/quickstart.md first: hour-one commands, the glossary, and what can and cannot break.

Migration at a glance

  1. Baseline the source project's tests, then inventory it read-only (scripts/inventory.py → manifest).
  2. Review classifications (MECH/JUDG/REDESIGN/NONE per reference/mapping.md); make the go/no-go call (three outcomes; migrate-with-conditions is the common case, stay is the narrow one); plan DAG boundaries, per-edge IO decisions, and Gate 3 expectations into the manifest.
  3. Trial-migrate 2-3 representative units end-to-end through every validation gate.
  4. Migrate domain by domain through the six-gate ladder (reference/validation.md), tracking per-unit state (scripts/status.py); fix failure classes via reference/troubleshooting.md, never stub.
  5. Map the platform layer (secrets, alerts, CI/CD, Deployments) per reference/astro-deployment.md.
  6. Run side by side, then cut over per domain (consumers unpause first; see the checklist), keeping rollback one step away.
  7. Deliver the migration report: every definition dispositioned, an equivalence row per trigger, losses stated plainly.

Version drift

Verified against Airflow 3.3.0 / Astro Runtime 3.3-2 / astronomer-cosmos 1.15 / Dagster 1.13 (2026-07). Version-sensitive rows in the references carry their floor (notably the 3.2-vs-3.3 partition surface). Before relying on a version-gated claim: check the target (airflow version, astro deployment inspect), probe imports for sdk surface (python3 -c "from airflow.sdk import X"), and prefer --help / API spec discovery over assuming verbatim CLI/REST contracts on newer versions. Playbook entries are version-scoped per entry.

Requirements

  • Target Astro Runtime 3.3+ (Airflow 3.3+); the native asset-partition surface requires it. Below 3.2 the mapping degrades badly; say so and recommend upgrading before migrating.
  • The Dagster repo, and ideally a running Dagster instance (its materialization metadata provides parity-test fixtures).
  • astro CLI for the target project.

Hard rules

  1. Never stub. A translated unit either works through its validation gate or is deferred with a written reason. Fake-success bodies and workaround code with long justifying comments are failures.
  2. No silent omissions. Every record in the inventory manifest ends complete or deferred (reason). scripts/status.py summary exits nonzero otherwise; run it before claiming done.
  3. Equivalence rows for every trigger. Each schedule/sensor/automation condition gets a report row: source spelling, target spelling, delta in one sentence. Semantic deltas exist (catchup, on_cron inversion, eager guarantees); the sin is not the delta, it is the undocumented delta.
  4. Fix classes, not instances. When a translation pattern fails validation, fix the pattern (and record it in reference/troubleshooting.md), then re-apply; do not hand-patch one unit.
  5. Do not invent APIs. The references contain verified names only. Anything not covered there gets verified against official docs before use.

Workflow

Phase 0: Preflight

Confirm target Runtime version, astro CLI presence, and repo access. Detect the project layout: classic (@repository/workspace.yaml), modern (Definitions), or Components (pyproject.toml [tool.dg], defs.yaml files); all three occur, sometimes together. Baseline the source project's test suite now: pre-existing failures are recorded and excluded from migration blame.

Phase 1: Inventory (read-only)

python3 scripts/inventory.py <dagster_repo> --out manifest.json          # static scan
python3 scripts/inventory.py <dagster_repo> --runtime --out manifest.json # + runtime introspection when the project imports

The manifest lists every definition with file:line, captured params, current-vs-deprecated spelling, and dependency edges with their IO manager; every record starts classification: "pending". Classifying is YOUR first judgment task: assign each record MECH / JUDG / REDESIGN / NONE from its row in reference/mapping.md and write it into the manifest. The scanner enumerates (deterministic completeness); the agent classifies (judgment). A record you cannot map to a mapping.md row is itself a finding: record it, do not guess. Also grep for DAGSTER_CLOUD_ and EnvVar( (platform layer, Phase 5).

Manifest conventions: the canonical manifest lives in the migration run directory. Once the Astro project exists (Phase 2 scaffold), copy the manifest to its include/inventory/manifest.json so the Gate 3 pytest and status.py defaults find it; until then it just stays in the run dir (keep the two in sync afterward, the run-dir copy wins). Static records are the canonical migration units; runtime-mode enrichment merges into them, and only genuinely runtime-only definitions (factory-generated) become new units.

Emit the migration report skeleton now: one section per manifest record, plus the secrets/env naming map from reference/astro-deployment.md. Scale the skeleton to the project: a secretless local project gets a one-line "no secrets/platform layer" note, not empty boilerplate sections.

Phase 1.5: Go/no-go (the honest gate)

Before translating anything, answer the project-level question the inventory makes answerable: what does this team give up by migrating, and does each loss have an acceptable answer? Assess the NONE and REDESIGN rows against what is load-bearing for THIS team, evaluating the mitigation, not just the loss:

If load-bearingThe Airflow-world answerStay-signal only if
dbt rebuild-on-code-change (code_version_changed())State-aware dbt builds on a cron (Fusion / dbt State skip unchanged models per run, so the post-deploy tick rebuilds exactly what changed), and/or CI-triggered dbt build on merge (PR-gated, often an upgrade)The team can neither run a state-aware dbt stack nor dbt from CI
Freshness driving materializationAstro Observe freshness SLAs / Timeliness alerts + scheduled runs sized to the SLAFreshness-triggered compute is genuinely irreplaceable by schedule+alerting
Per-asset cost accounting (Insights)Astro Observe pipeline-level warehouse cost management; per-asset granularity is lostPer-ASSET chargeback is a contractual/organizational requirement
Asset catalog / column-level lineage as daily toolsAirflow 3 asset views + OpenLineage/Astro lineage (asset-level)Column-level lineage is embedded in daily workflows with no external catalog
Deep AutomationCondition compositions, can_subset, selective per-partition materializationMost decompose to cron/asset schedules (see reference/automation.md); the residue is redesigned per domainMultiple domains depend on compositions that decompose to nothing
Sensor cursor transactionality, run-scoped teardownIdempotent consumers + max_active_runs; context managers in task bodiesExactly-once event coalescing is a correctness requirement that idempotency cannot absorb

One rule the table implies, stated plainly: no dbt-only condition reaches "stay." Between Cosmos, state-aware dbt builds, and CI-triggered builds, every dbt-workflow loss has an accepted-practice mitigation (execution-proven in this skill's eval program, including on a real warehouse); dbt items are conditions to record, never blockers. The observability rows (per-asset cost, column-level lineage) are separate conditions and are evaluated on their own, even for dbt-heavy teams.

The gate's outcome is three-valued, and the middle one is the common case:

  • Migrate: no stay-signals; proceed to Phase 2.
  • Migrate with conditions (most real projects): losses exist, mitigations are named and accepted in writing in the report's first section, specific domains may carry REDESIGN work; proceed to Phase 2 with those conditions recorded.
  • Stay on Dagster, today: reserved for the case where MULTIPLE stay-signal conditions in the right column genuinely hold at once and the migration is not externally mandated. Then the honest deliverable is that recommendation, in writing, with the specific unmitigated losses named, and the run stops there. A migration guide that cannot say "don't" cannot be trusted when it says "do", but "don't" is earned by unmitigatable losses, not by the mere existence of deltas.

Phase 2: Plan

  • DAG boundaries: decide which asset-dependency edges become asset-aware schedules (cross-DAG) vs task ordering (intra-DAG). Group by domain/schedule cadence/team ownership; define_asset_job selections usually name the natural domains.
  • Per-edge IO decisions via the tree in reference/io-and-data-passing.md (fuse / explicit storage / XCom).
  • Order: leaf domains first, dependency order after; the platform layer last.
  • Fill each planned unit's target expectations into the manifest: dag_id, task_count, edges, schedule, asset_outlets per unit. Gate 3 asserts against exactly these fields; a unit without them is skipped by validation, so an unenriched manifest means Gate 3 checks nothing (validate_dag reports skipped counts loudly, do not ignore them).
  • Scaffold the target: astro dev init, shared helpers under include/. House conventions the scaffold imposes (e.g. a test demanding retries >= 2) do NOT override source fidelity: source behavior wins; convention adoption is a post-cutover improvement listed in the report, and the scaffold test gets skipped with an explicit reason.

Phase 3: Trial

Migrate 2-3 representative units end-to-end through every gate before fanning out. Pick one MECH asset, one partitioned asset, one JUDG case, or the nearest available mix (small projects may have no partitioned or no MECH assets; pick one full path through a real DAG instead). What the trial teaches goes into reference/troubleshooting.md before scaling; if the trial fails structurally, stop and rework the plan, not the units.

Phase 4: Migrate, domain by domain

Per unit, the state machine (tracked in the manifest):

pending → translate → fix-import → fix-lint → fix-tests → verify-parity → complete
                                    ↘ deferred (reason required)
  • Translate using the reference file for the construct (routing table below). Rich context beats cleverness: read the source unit, its mapping rows, and a nearby already-migrated example.
  • Validate through the gates: python3 scripts/validate_dag.py <astro_project> --manifest manifest.json (gates 1-3), then execution and parity per reference/validation.md.
  • On gate failure, retry with the latest validator output in context (cap ~10 attempts, then defer with the failure class).
  • Advance state only on gate pass: python3 scripts/status.py advance <unit-id> .... A wrong disposition is corrected with status.py reopen <unit-id> --reason .... The no-hand-editing rule applies to the STATE field (status) only; the PLAN fields (dag_id, task_count, edges, schedule, asset_outlets, target) are the planner's to write in Phase 2.
  • Units that deliberately translate to NO DAG of their own (helpers absorbed into tasks, policies that became alerts, resources that became connections) are dispositioned complete with target: "none" and evidence naming where they went; Gate 3 skips them by design.
  • Commit per unit, atomically.

Phase 5: Platform layer

reference/astro-deployment.md: Deployments topology, secrets/connection naming map, CI/CD and preview Deployments, alert-policy mapping, Observe/lineage expectations, the DAGSTER_CLOUD_* in-code rewrite checklist.

Phase 6: Side-by-side and cutover

Dagster remains authoritative. Run migrated DAGs shadowed/paused; compare outputs over the same logical window (row counts + checksums; recompute expected values from the Dagster-produced output itself, using recorded materialization metadata only opportunistically, per reference/validation.md Gate 5). Flip schedules one domain per change window: pause the Dagster schedule, unpause the Airflow DAG; rollback is the reverse. Keep Dagster readable after cutover (run history does not migrate).

Phase 7: Final report

scripts/status.py summary must pass. The report contains: the go/no-go assessment (Phase 1.5) and its rationale, disposition table for every definition, all equivalence rows, the NONE/REDESIGN losses stated plainly (lineage depth, code_version triggers, Insights cost accounting, sensor cursor transactionality), the secrets map, and the deferred list with reasons. Spot-check ten complete claims before delivering it.

Reference routing

Construct encounteredRead
First hour, glossary, what can breakreference/quickstart.md
Anything (first stop: one row per construct)reference/mapping.md
Asset-key → URI convention, translation granularity, external/observable assetsreference/assets.md
Asset deps, IO managers, XCom, storage decisionsreference/io-and-data-passing.md
Any partitions_def, partition mappings, backfillsreference/partitions.md
Schedules, sensors, AutomationCondition, freshnessreference/automation.md
@dbt_assets, translators, dbt Cloudreference/dbt.md
Components (defs.yaml), custom Component subclasses, dynamic generationreference/components.md
dagster_cloud.yaml, secrets, alerts, CI/CD, cutoverreference/astro-deployment.md
Gates, parity testing, state machinereference/validation.md
Failure classes seen beforereference/troubleshooting.md

Scripts

ScriptPurpose
scripts/inventory.pyScan the Dagster repo → JSON manifest (static + optional runtime mode)
scripts/validate_dag.pyGates 1-3 against the generated Astro project
scripts/status.pyPer-unit state machine + completeness gate

來自 astronomer 的更多技能

airflow-state-store
astronomer
Persists task and asset state across retries and DAG runs using Airflow 3.3's AIP-103 key/value stores (`task_state_store`, `asset_state_store`) and the…
creating-openlineage-extractors
astronomer
為不支援的Airflow運算子及複雜血緣場景設計的自訂OpenLineage提取器。提供兩種方法:直接在你擁有的運算子中加入OpenLineage方法(建議做法),或為無法修改的第三方運算子建立自訂提取器。提取器在三個時間點攔截運算子執行:執行前取得靜態血緣、成功後取得執行階段決定的輸出、以及選擇性地在失敗後取得部分血緣。可透過airflow.cfg或環境變數註冊提取器...
debugging-dags
astronomer
針對失敗的 Airflow DAG 進行系統性根本原因分析與修復,並提供結構化的調查流程。引導完成四個階段的診斷步驟:識別失敗、提取錯誤細節、收集背景資訊,以及提供可行的修復步驟。將失敗分為四種類型(資料、程式碼、基礎設施、相依性),以聚焦調查並建議適當的修正方式。提供可直接使用的 CLI 指令,用於日誌擷取、執行比較、任務清除與 DAG...
delegating-to-otto
astronomer
驅動 Astronomer 的 Otto 代理
deploying-airflow
astronomer
部署 Airflow DAG 和專案。當使用者想要部署程式碼、推送 DAG、設定 CI/CD、部署到生產環境,或詢問部署策略時使用…
deploying-go-sdk-bundles
astronomer
建置、打包並部署已編譯的 Airflow Go SDK 套件,以便 ExecutableCoordinator 能執行它們。當使用者想要編譯 Go 任務套件、要求…時使用。
testing-dags
astronomer
針對Airflow DAG的反覆測試-除錯-修復循環,提供全面的失敗診斷。從af runs trigger-wait <dag_id>開始執行DAG並等待完成,無需預先檢查。失敗時,使用af runs diagnose獲取完整的失敗摘要,並透過af tasks logs檢查特定任務的錯誤細節。支援自訂配置、超時設定與重試機制;能處理成功、失敗及超時情境,並提供清晰的回應解讀。快速驗證功能亦已就緒...
tracing-downstream-lineage
astronomer
追蹤下游資料血緣,在修改資料表或DAG前評估變更影響。透過原始碼搜尋、檢視相依性及BI工具連線,識別目標資料表或DAG的直接消費者。建立完整的相依性樹狀圖,繪製從資料表到儀表板再到機器學習模型的所有下游影響。依關鍵性(關鍵、高、中、低)分類相依性,以優先處理利害關係人溝通與測試。產出包含風險評估、受影響範圍的影響報告。