I would think we would deprecate the old API once we say the new API is “ready to go” - and leave it in place a while as users transition to new API. Why is there an urgency to remove it from codebase?
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:46 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > Removing the experimental is a fundamental breaking change to users' > workflows, and so we should remove it before 2.0. > > -ash > > On 13 August 2020 10:14:02 BST, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > >And I think we should make the whole experimenta API deprecated in > >1.10.12 > >possibly ? > > > >On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Jarek Potiuk > ><jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > >wrote: > > > >> 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/> > >> > >> > > > >-- > > > >Jarek Potiuk > >Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > >M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
