I think no matter what, Maybe we should simply make it deprecated in the upcoming (today?) release of 1.10.12 ? Then we can decide if in - potential - 1.10.13 we remove it or leave it as it is.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:37 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote: > I started this thread mainly to discuss what we want to do with this remote > mode prior to the Airflow 2.0 release. This is mainly due to the fact that > he is using an experimental API which will be deprecated. > > In my opinion, we have several solutions. > a) Delete this mode as unused and not supported. > b) Rewrite in-core API client to support stable API > c) Prepare OpenAPI based client and rewrite CLI to use it > d) Leave as-is > > There were various expectations on the mailing list about this mode, but I > haven't seen anyone actively contribute to it. This brings me further > questions. Does anyone use this mode in its current form? If no one is > using it, I think we can take more radical steps to start with a blank > page. This will make it easier to start work and be able to iterate over it > faster in the future. This looks like a simple task, but if we want to be > sure that no breaking-changes are made, we should pay off some technical > debt and increase testing coverage before we can think about making more > changes. It may not be necessary if we choose a different path of > development. > > I think now is a good time to try to make some decisions if someone is > actually interested in developing these features. I do not think we need a > precise vision of the development, if currently this feature is not used by > anyone and no one is really interested in its development. > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 7:16 AM QP Hou <q...@scribd.com> wrote: > > > I think it's best to divide the discussion into two separate topics. > > > > First one is to replace the existing json_client with the new to be > created > > official Airflow Python Client backed by the new RESTful API. This IMHO > is > > a must have considering we are to deprecate experimental API going > forward. > > > > The second topic is to create a better CLI experience leveraging the new > > APIs. This is much more controversial. I remember us having a > > similar discussion in the dev list a year ago, which didn't get much > > traction. It's not possible to fit all existing CLI functionalities into > > REST APIs. DB utils use-case that Ash mentioned is a great example. So I > > think one potential solution is to split the CLI into two. Keep the > > existing CLI as the admin/management CLI can communicate directly with > the > > DB and taps into airflow core code base. On the other hand, we can > create a > > separate user facing CLI that's light weight, fast and remote only. It > > doesn't even need to be written in python to make it easier to distribute > > as a single binary. > > > > Thanks, > > QP Hou > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:44 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > -1 from me without a firm plan how we will replace it. > > > > > > I see keeping it and extending to use the new API would ensure that > > > everything the CLI can do locally (i.e. when airflow webserver isn't up > > > yet, with the ) also works over the API with the exception of db > > utilities. > > > > > > -ash > > > > > > On 11 August 2020 20:05:56 BST, QP Hou <q...@scribd.com> wrote: > > > >+1 for replacing the existing remote mode client with the open api > > > >based > > > >client. IMO, we don't really have other options here because the > > > >experimental API will be deprecated in the future. > > > > > > > >For OpenAPI based Airflow REST clients, the current plan is to > maintain > > > >all > > > >the code gen automation within the main source tree [1], then use it > to > > > >populate each individual language specific client repo like the go > > > >client > > > >mentioned earlier. So far, we have the go client completed and > > > >validated to > > > >make sure this development flow will meet our needs. The next step I > > > >think > > > >the community should focus on is getting API auth implemented [2] > > > >before we > > > >move on to generate the python client. How we do API auth could have a > > > >big > > > >impact on client code gen automation, so it is worth waiting for. > > > > > > > >Once we have authentication implemented in both Airflow core and > > > >clients, > > > >we should be all good to start doing version releases for our API > > > >clients. > > > > > > > >That said, adopting open api based clients in the CLI alone won't > > > >address > > > >the issue of CLI depending on full airflow installation. Some of the > > > >cli > > > >commands like `dags test` depend on a full airflow installation by > > > >design. > > > >We will have to either develop a separate CLI intended for remote only > > > >use > > > >or add a flag in the existing cli so it can run in a pure remote mode > > > >where > > > >it would disable loading of code that requires airflow installation > > > >entirely. > > > > > > > >[1]: https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/master/clients, > > > >[2]: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/8112 > > > > > > > >On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:05 AM Kamil Breguła > > > ><kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello, > > > >> > > > >> I think we should remove remote mode in CLI and in-core API Client > > > >> (airflow.api.client package). > > > >> Here is docs about remote mode: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://airflow.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage-cli.html#set-up-connection-to-a-remote-airflow-instance > > > >> > > > >> Since these features were introduced, it has never been actively > > > >developed > > > >> and I don't think it's widely used. At the same time, Apache Airflow > > > >is > > > >> evolving, and this code stands out more and more from the rest. > > > >> > > > >> My main reservations about these features: > > > >> - Remote mode/in-core API Client is rarely used. I asked a few > people > > > >and > > > >> none of them used it in production. Does anyone use it? > > > >> - A very small number of commands are available (7 pools command and > > > >2 dags > > > >> command only) > > > >> - Remote mode/API Client depends on experimental REST API. > > > >> - Remote mode/API Client is a handwritten code that is difficult to > > > >> maintain. > > > >> - No documentation for API client > > > >> - Remote mode/API Client has low test coverage. > > > >> - Remote mode does not provide a good level of security, because it > > > >depends > > > >> on experimental API. There is the only authentication, but the > > > >> authenticated user can perform any operation. > > > >> - Requires full Airflow to be installed along with a large number of > > > >> unnecessary dependencies. Some of them are difficult to install in > > > >some > > > >> environments, e.g. setproctitle on Windows > > > >> - Using this client API changes the logger configuration because it > > > >> requires importing the airflow package. > > > >> > > > >> I think this remote mode in CLI is something valuable, but I think > we > > > >can > > > >> do it in a different way in the future, e.g. generate a CLI/API > > > >Client > > > >> based on the OpenAPI specification. > > > >> > > > >> Generated API clients can be installed independently of airflow and > > > >will be > > > >> easier to maintain. We already have one API client for golang > > > >implemented > > > >> in this way, so new languages will only be developing this idea. > > > >> - https://github.com/apache/airflow-client-go > > > >> > > > >> I will be happy to discuss the vision of the development of these > two > > > >> things. How do we want to develop these two things? > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> Kamil Bregula > > > >> > > > > > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
