Handle no next run in dags next-execution --table

[fallintoplace]

What this does

• handle the None sentinel in airflow dags next-execution --table
• stop building table rows once there is no following schedule
• add regression tests for schedule=None and @once with --num-executions 2 --table

Why

The non-table path already handles the "no next run" case, but the table path iterated over DagRunInfo | None and applied attribute getters unconditionally. That could raise when a DAG has schedule=None, or when an @once DAG is asked for additional executions.

Closes #67394.

Testing

• Not run (not requested in this local workflow)

---

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @fallintoplace · by @potiuk · 2026-07-18 16:36 UTC

I've removed the ready for maintainer review label — the next step here is yours:

• ❌ Merge conflicts with main. See docs.

It'll return to the maintainer queue automatically once resolved — no need to re-add the label by hand. See the Pull Request quality criteria for details.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned. Rebase onto main, push, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our prek-hooks will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example Dag that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[henry3260]

Overall LGTM

[henry3260]

Suggested change

	"This DAG may have schedule interval '@once' or `None`.",
	"This Dag may have schedule interval '@once' or `None`.",

[henry3260]

Suggested change

	"This Dag may have schedule interval '@once' or `None`.",

just for keep consistnecy

[23tae]

Great fix for the CLI crash and excellent test coverage!
Left a minor inline suggestion regarding consistency.
LGTM!

[23tae]

The iter_next_dagrun_info() generator naturally exhausts itself on None, making this break technically unnecessary.

For consistency with the existing non---table block below, we can just remove it here. No pressure though, either way is fine.

[potiuk]

@fallintoplace A few things need addressing before review — see our Pull Request quality criteria.

• ❌ Pre-commit / static checks. See docs.

No rush.

---

Note: This comment was drafted by an AI-assisted triage tool and may contain mistakes. Once you have addressed the points above, an Apache Airflow maintainer — a real person — will take the next look at your PR. We use this two-stage triage process so that our maintainers' limited time is spent where it matters most: the conversation with you.

---

Drafted-by: Claude Code (Opus 4.7); reviewed by @potiuk before posting

[fallintoplace]

@potiuk Thank you! Let me check later.

[potiuk]

@fallintoplace — There are 3 unresolved review thread(s) on this PR, and you have engaged with each one (post-review commits and/or in-thread replies). Could you confirm whether you believe the feedback is fully addressed and the PR is ready for maintainer review confirmation?

If yes, reply here (a short "yes / ready" is fine) and an Apache Airflow maintainer will pick the PR up from the review queue on the next sweep.

If you are still working on a thread, please reply with what is outstanding so the threads stay unresolved on purpose.

Note: This comment was drafted by an AI-assisted triage tool and may contain mistakes. Once you have addressed the points above, an Apache Airflow maintainer — a real person — will take the next look at your PR. We use this two-stage triage process so that our maintainers' limited time is spent where it matters most: the conversation with you.

[fallintoplace]

Thanks for the ping. I checked this again, and it looks like this PR is now superseded by #67642, which already landed the no-next-run handling for dags next-execution --table plus regression coverage.

No maintainer review needed on this one anymore.

[fallintoplace]

Let me know if more changes are needed.

[fallintoplace]

Sorry for the confusion from my last comment. As noted above, #67642 already fixed this issue and added regression coverage, so there’s nothing left to merge here. Closing as superseded. Thanks everyone for the reviews.