I agree with both of you that it is indeed a good idea and that it can be added in Future work -- doesn't need to be part of this AIP.
Thanks for the interest. I was not aware of such feature and this looks > really cool! I definitely think that can be useful for Airflow, especially > for testing when you can easily replay events received in the past. > However, I do not think it should be part of the AIP and, as you mentioned, > if should be a future work or a follow-up item of the AIP. Please let me > know if you (or anyone) disagree with this and we can talk about it. > Otherwise I'll update the future work section of the AIP and mention this > archive and replay feature. On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 16:11, Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> wrote: > Hey Pavan, > > Thanks for the interest. I was not aware of such feature and this looks > really cool! I definitely think that can be useful for Airflow, especially > for testing when you can easily replay events received in the past. > However, I do not think it should be part of the AIP and, as you mentioned, > if should be a future work or a follow-up item of the AIP. Please let me > know if you (or anyone) disagree with this and we can talk about it. > Otherwise I'll update the future work section of the AIP and mention this > archive and replay feature. > > On 2024/08/01 01:21:58 Pavankumar Gopidesu wrote: > > Thanks Vincent, I took a look , this is really good. Don't have access to > > the confluence page to comment :) so adding it here. > > > > As events arrive-->do somework-->end. > > > > So I'm uncertain if my comment pertains to the current poll/push model or > > if it fits part of future work(seen event batching ). > > > > Have you given any thought to the event archival mechanism and event > > replay? This could significantly aid in testing and recovery of workflow > > and testing new functionality with events by just replay the events. The > > archival mechanism I am referring to is similar to today in AWS we have > > Event Bridge Archive and Replay. > > > > Regards, > > Pavan > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 1:29 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I actually did manage to take a look, thanks for the work. I am +1 on > the > > > poll-based approach -- left a comment on the push-based: I am not sure > of > > > why we need a function since create asset event API endpoint should > have > > > all info needed for what the Asset was. > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 01:14, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Vincent, I will take a look again tomorrow. > > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 18:47, Vincent Beck <vincb...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > >> I updated the AIP-82 given the different comments and concerns I > > > >> received. I also tried to reply to all comments individually. I > would > > > >> really appreciate if you can do a second pass and let me know what > you > > > >> think. Overall, this is what I changed in the AIP: > > > >> > > > >> - Push based event-driven scheduling. I updated this section > entirely > > > >> because I received many concerns about the previous proposal. The > > > overall > > > >> idea now is to leverage the create asset event API endpoint to send > > > >> notifications from external (e.g. cloud provider) to Airflow > > > environment. > > > >> > > > >> - I updated the poll based event-driven scheduling DAG author > experience > > > >> to use a message queue scenario. I understood that this is probably > the > > > >> main use case we are trying to cover with this AIP, thus I used it > as > > > >> example and mentioned it multiple times across the AIP. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks again for your time :) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-82+External+event+driven+scheduling+in+Airflow > > > >> > > > >> Vincent > > > >> > > > >> On 2024/07/29 15:58:23 Vincent Beck wrote: > > > >> > Thanks a lot all for the comments, this is very much appreciated! > I > > > >> received many comments from this thread and in confluence, thanks > again. > > > >> I'll try to address them all in the AIP and will send an email in > this > > > >> thread once done. I will most likely revisit the push-based approach > > > given > > > >> the number of concerns I received, thanks Jarek for proposing > another > > > >> solution, I'll probably go down that path. > > > >> > > > > >> > One follow-up question Vikram. > > > >> > > > > >> > > The bespoke triggerer approach completely makes sense for the > long > > > >> tail here, but can we do better for the 20% of scenarios which cover > > > well > > > >> over 80% of usage here is the question in my mind. Or, are you > thinking > > > of > > > >> those as being covered in the "push" model? > > > >> > > > > >> > Could you share more details about what is this "20% of scenarios > > > which > > > >> cover well over 80% of usage" please? > > > >> > > > > >> > Vincent > > > >> > > > > >> > On 2024/07/29 15:37:50 Kaxil Naik wrote: > > > >> > > Thanks Vincent for driving these, I have added my comments to > the > > > AIP > > > >> too. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > >> > > Kaxil > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 20:16, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T) > > > >> > > <jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > +1 on the comments of Vikram and Jarek, added main points on > > > >> confluence > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > > > >> > > > ________________________________ > > > >> > > > From: Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io.INVALID> > > > >> > > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 8:46:55 PM > > > >> > > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org <dev@airflow.apache.org> > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] External event driven scheduling in > Airflow > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Vincent, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for writing this up. The overview looks really good! > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I will leave my comments in the AIP as well, but at a high > level > > > >> they are > > > >> > > > both relatively focused on the "how", rather than the "what". > > > >> > > > With respect to the pull / polling approach, I completely > agree > > > >> that some > > > >> > > > incarnation of this is needed. > > > >> > > > I am less certain as to how on this part. The bespoke > triggerer > > > >> approach > > > >> > > > completely makes sense for the long tail here, but can we do > > > better > > > >> for the > > > >> > > > 20% of scenarios which cover well over 80% of usage here is > the > > > >> question in > > > >> > > > my mind. Or, are you thinking of those as being covered in the > > > >> "push" > > > >> > > > model? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Which leads to the "push" model approach. > > > >> > > > I am struggling with the same question that Jarek raised here > > > about > > > >> whether > > > >> > > > we need a new Airflow entity over and beyond the existing > REST API > > > >> for the > > > >> > > > same. > > > >> > > > I am concerned about this becoming a vector of attack on > Airflow. > > > >> > > > I see that this is a hot topic of discussion in the > Confluence doc > > > >> as well, > > > >> > > > but wanted to summarize here as well, so it didn't get lost > in the > > > >> threads > > > >> > > > of comments. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards, > > > >> > > > Vikram > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:16 AM Jarek Potiuk < > ja...@potiuk.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks Vincent. I took a look and I have a general comment. > I > > > >> > > > > strongly think external driven scheduling is really needed - > > > >> especially, > > > >> > > > it > > > >> > > > > should be much easier for a user to "plug-in" such an > external > > > >> event to > > > >> > > > > Airflow. And there are two parts of it - as correctly stated > > > >> there - pull > > > >> > > > > and push. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > For the pull - I think it would be great to have a kind of > > > >> specialized > > > >> > > > > Triggers that will be started when DAG is parsed - and those > > > >> Triggers > > > >> > > > could > > > >> > > > > generate the events for DAGs. I think basically that's all > that > > > is > > > >> > > > needed, > > > >> > > > > for example I imagine a pubsub trigger that will subscribe > to > > > >> messages > > > >> > > > > coming on the pubsub queue and fire "Asset" event when a > message > > > >> is > > > >> > > > > received. Not much controversy there - I am not sure about > the > > > >> polling > > > >> > > > > thing , because I've always believed that when > "asyncio-native" > > > >> Trigger > > > >> > > > is > > > >> > > > > run in the asyncio event loop, we do not "poll" every > second or > > > >> so (but > > > >> > > > > maybe this is just coming from some specific triggers that > > > >> actually do > > > >> > > > > such regular poll. But yes - there are polls like running > > > select > > > >> on the > > > >> > > > DB > > > >> > > > > that cannot be easily "async-ed" so having a configurable > > > polling > > > >> time > > > >> > > > > would be good there (but I am not sure maybe it's even > possible > > > >> today). I > > > >> > > > > think this would be really great if we have that option, > because > > > >> it makes > > > >> > > > > it much easier to set up the authorization for Airlfow > users - > > > >> rather > > > >> > > > than > > > >> > > > > setting up authorization and REST calls coming from an > external > > > >> system, > > > >> > > > we > > > >> > > > > can utilize Connections of Airlfow to authorize such a > Trigger > > > to > > > >> > > > subscribe > > > >> > > > > to events. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > For the push proposal - as I read the proposal, the main > point > > > >> behind it > > > >> > > > > is rather than users having to write "Airflow" way of > triggering > > > >> events > > > >> > > > and > > > >> > > > > configuring authentication (using REST API) to generate > asset > > > >> events, is > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > make Airflow natively understand external ways of pushing - > and > > > >> > > > effectively > > > >> > > > > authorizing and mapping such incoming unauthorized requests > into > > > >> event > > > >> > > > that > > > >> > > > > could be generated by an API REST call. > > > >> > > > > I am not really sure honestly if this is something that we > want > > > as > > > >> > > > > "running" in airlfow as an endpoint. I'd say such an > > > unauthorised > > > >> > > > endpoint > > > >> > > > > is probably not a good idea - for a variety of reasons, > mostly > > > >> security. > > > >> > > > > And as I understand the goal is that users can easily point > at > > > >> > > > "3rd-party" > > > >> > > > > notification to Airflow and get the event generated. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > My feeling is that while this is needed - it should be > > > >> externalised from > > > >> > > > > airlfow webserver. The authorization has to be set up anyway > > > >> > > > additionally - > > > >> > > > > unlike in "poll" case - we cannot use Connections for > > > authorizing > > > >> > > > (because > > > >> > > > > it's not Airlfow that authorizes in an external system - > it's > > > the > > > >> other > > > >> > > > way > > > >> > > > > round). So we have to anyhow setup "something extra" in > Airflow > > > to > > > >> > > > > authorize the external system. Which could be what we have > now - > > > >> user > > > >> > > > that > > > >> > > > > allows us to trigger the event. Which means that our REST > API > > > >> could > > > >> > > > > potentially be used the same way it is now, but we will need > > > >> "something" > > > >> > > > > (library, lambda function etc.) that users could easily > setup in > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > external system to map whatever trigger they generate > natively > > > >> (say S3 > > > >> > > > file > > > >> > > > > created) to Airflow REST API. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > As I see it - this is quite often used (and very practical, > that > > > >> you > > > >> > > > deploy > > > >> > > > > a cloud function or lambda that subscribes on the event > received > > > >> when > > > >> > > > > S3/GCS is created. So it would be on the user to deploy > such a > > > >> lambda - > > > >> > > > but > > > >> > > > > we **could** provide a library of those: say s3 lambda, gcp > > > cloud > > > >> > > > function > > > >> > > > > in respective providers - with documentation how to set > them up, > > > >> and how > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > configure authorization and we would be generally "done". I > am > > > >> just not > > > >> > > > > sure if we need a new entity in Airflow for that (Event > > > >> receiver). It > > > >> > > > feels > > > >> > > > > like it asks Airflow to take more responsibility, when we > all > > > >> think on > > > >> > > > what > > > >> > > > > to "remove" from Airflow rather than "add" to it - > especially > > > >> when it > > > >> > > > comes > > > >> > > > > to external integrations. It feels to me that Airflow should > > > make > > > >> it easy > > > >> > > > > to be triggered by such an external system and make it easy > to > > > >> "map" to > > > >> > > > the > > > >> > > > > way we expect to get events triggered, but this should be > done > > > >> outside of > > > >> > > > > Airflow. If the users can easily find in our docs when they > > > >> search "what > > > >> > > > do > > > >> > > > > I do to externally trigger Airflow on S3 change": either a) > > > >> configure > > > >> > > > > polling in airflow using s3 Connection, or b) "create a > user + > > > >> deploy > > > >> > > > this > > > >> > > > > lambda with those parameters" - that is "easy enough" and > very > > > >> practical > > > >> > > > > as well. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > But maybe I am not seeing the whole picture and the real > problem > > > >> it's > > > >> > > > > solving - so take it as a "first review pass" and "guts > > > feeling". > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > J. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:55 PM Beck, Vincent > > > >> > > > <vincb...@amazon.com.invalid > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I created a draft AIP regarding "External event driven > > > >> scheduling in > > > >> > > > > > Airflow". This proposal is about adding capability in > Airflow > > > to > > > >> > > > schedule > > > >> > > > > > DAGs based on external events. Here are some examples of > such > > > >> external > > > >> > > > > > events: > > > >> > > > > > - A user signs up to one of the user pool defined in my > cloud > > > >> provider > > > >> > > > > > - One of the databases used in my company has been updated > > > >> > > > > > - A job in my cloud provider has been executed > successfully > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The intent of this AIP is to leverage datasets (which > will be > > > >> soon > > > >> > > > > assets) > > > >> > > > > > and update them based on external events. I would like to > > > >> propose this > > > >> > > > > AIP > > > >> > > > > > for discussion and more importantly, hear some feedbacks > from > > > >> you :) > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FAIRFLOW%2FAIP-82%2BExternal%2Bevent%2Bdriven%2Bscheduling%2Bin%2BAirflow&data=05%7C02%7CJens.Scheffler%40de.bosch.com%7C9e55ef9af31e4a669ef108dcada3a726%7C0ae51e1907c84e4bbb6d648ee58410f4%7C0%7C0%7C638576165598178951%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3FFvhCI6RA6sPhZoiOBAqzgyTkC6NNYqJYjBRVqEmUY%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > > < > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-82+External+event+driven+scheduling+in+Airflow > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Vincent > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >
