Show task, DAG detail durations in hour:minute:second format rather than just seconds

[josh-fell]

Description

In Airflow 2, both the task and DAG durations were displayed in hour:minute:second format in the UI in the Details pages. With Airflow 3, these durations are only displayed in seconds. It would be great to have these durations in the same format as Airflow 2 to reduce the need for users to convert seconds mentally when looking the UI. This is especially helpful for task/DAG durations more than a few minutes.

May the format could even be a more verbose/dynamic format like X hours and Y minutes if > 60 minutes; Y minutes if > 1 and < 60 minutes; Z seconds if < 1 minute?

Use case/motivation

Users should be able to quickly see the explicit task/DAG duration in the UI. The current seconds-only format forces users to convert the duration value to a timespan that makes sense in the context of the task/DAG run while viewing the task/DAG run Details pages.

Related issues

No response

Are you willing to submit a PR?

• Yes I am willing to submit a PR!

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[tirkarthi]

May the format could even be a more verbose/dynamic format like X hours and Y minutes if > 60 minutes; Y minutes if > 1 and < 60 minutes; Z seconds if < 1 minute?

This looks like a reasonable change to me especially in environments where tasks run for hours that needs seconds to hours calculation. In Airflow 2 it was always formatted as [days]dHH:MM:SS like 2d12:11:02, 12:11:03 with days part being optional and shown on more than 1 day.

cc: @bbovenzi @pierrejeambrun

[bbovenzi]

Yes, let's decide on better time duration format for Airflow

I liked the [days]dHH:MM:SS for longer durations but it was a lot for durations of just a few seconds or even less than a single second. 00:00:00 made it look like nothing ran.

Maybe anything less than 10 seconds could have a different format of SS.sss?

[pierrejeambrun]

Maybe anything less than 10 seconds could have a different format of SS.sss?

Sounds good to me.