I also think it would be beneficial for users / someone editing / accessing connections or variables from the UI to know "where" they are editing it.
Right now it's the metadata DB but with the proposed PR that probably could change (for cases when DB is highest priority / middle priority?) But generally speaking, DAG authors at any point need not know where they are getting connections / variables from in a happy path scenario, but things will change if something starts to fail and it really depends on who is debugging the failure :)! The deployment manager can go and run the `airflow config get-value` command, but I am guessing most DAG authors wouldn't / shouldn't be able to do that. So in short, the idea makes sense theoretically to me, but it needs much more work, mainly in terms of: - Doc clarification - Debugging assistance (how to know the order?): it's a more general problem not due to the task but similar / related to this - Considering the worker backend angle Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 11:39 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > I think the only real "behavioural" change that you might expect from the > user if they "know" what is the sequence is at the connection / variable > UI. This is where the user (with connection/variable editing capabilities > or connection/variable viewing capabilities) might actually make a > different decision or draw a different conclusion. So my proposal would be > to explain the sequence - in possibly some concise way - at the > connection/variable screen. > > And that seems both natural and obvious. > > Is that "enough" for you ? Or do you think other places need "surfacing" ? > What other behaviour of the users (different actors) you see might be > impacted by lack / presence of the information? > > J. > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 5:42 PM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > This seems like > > organisation-wide policy that simply all DAG authors in the organization > > should be made aware of > > > > One among several other things that the admin expects users to remember. > We > > should reduce it, not increase it. > > From my point of view this setting adds a blind spot. I am not happy with > > this. > > I have similar feelings towards cluster policies, yet another blind spot > > that dag authors should be aware of but no actual tools provided to see > the > > override in their side. > > > > I initially shared my thoughts on 31 March in > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/45931#discussion_r2021018760 > > So far I haven't seen any comments that explain why we can't implement > such > > a mechanism. Is it technically complicated? Is it high effort? or > > the assumption is that it serves little value? > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 3:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > > I am missing the part of how can DAG Author be aware of the backend > > order > > > the cluster admin chooses? > > > > This is a crucial part > > > > > > I am not sure there is a special need for it. This seems like > > > organisation-wide policy that simply all DAG authors in the > organization > > > should be made aware of - it has 0 impact on the way how DAGs are > > written. > > > If it would be different for different DAGs you'd surely need to > > > communicate this, but I am not sure if any other indication is needed. > > It's > > > largely transparent for `DAG authors` if you ask me - they want a > > > connection by id and the "organizational policy" decides how this > > happens. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 2:06 PM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I am missing the part of how can DAG Author be aware of the backend > > order > > > > the cluster admin chooses? > > > > This is a crucial part. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 12:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry for typos - that was my mobile auto complete... I hope it is > > > > > understandable anyway > > > > > > > > > > czw., 3 lip 2025, 11:13 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > czw., 3 lip 2025, 10:14 użytkownik Amogh Desai < > > > > amoghdesai....@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for that angle, Jarek. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Lets say DB lookup has higher precedence than that of say ENV > > > backend. > > > > > >> Wouldn't this be shooting ourselves in the foot by compromising > > the > > > > > >> performance here? DB lookup > > > > > >> will be more expensive than DB. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Oh absolutely. I think if we have this possibility of managing > > order > > > > > those > > > > > > kind of scenarios alshould be explained in the docs so that users > > do > > > > not > > > > > > shoot themselves in a foot > > > > > > > > > > > > Also following my mail about multi team. I started to think > > recently > > > - > > > > > > looking at some other OSS software thetwe sometimes take too much > > > > > > responsibility for our users and the snuffer be cause we have to > > > defend > > > > > out > > > > > > opinionated choices when there are use cases that outlet choices > do > > > not > > > > > > enable. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason why we have so many 'options' and config > values > > > > > because > > > > > > sometimes we do not want to make decisions for our users - but > > where > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > make it an option and configuration and clearly explain to o lut > > > users > > > > > (and > > > > > > mostly I am talking about Deployment Manager role from our > security > > > > > model). > > > > > > - it's their responsibility to read all the information we > provide > > > and > > > > > > follow it when they make decisions on how to configure Airflow - > > > > knowing > > > > > > the consequences. And we should be 'harsh' with them - in the > sense > > > > that > > > > > if > > > > > > they did not read the docs and did not understand it - any time > > they > > > > ask > > > > > > imus about something not working that is explained in the docs - > we > > > > > should > > > > > > send them to the doc with 'Read The Friendly Manual' advice - > > simply > > > > > > because this is the only job they have. And we should not do the > > job > > > > for > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly having operations like that allow our managed service > > > > providers > > > > > > to make their opinionated choices and make some configuration > > options > > > > > > possible, some selected for their users in the context of the > > service > > > > > > managed. But again - that's their responsibility to manage and > > > > understand > > > > > > what are the options and what they mean. Same as individual > > > deployment > > > > > > managers - they can make their own decisions - and if it does not > > > cost > > > > > us a > > > > > > lot we should make it possible for them to make those choices > (and > > > take > > > > > > responsibility for their choices) > > > > > > > > > > > > With great powers (of choice) you also have great > responsibilities > > > (of > > > > > > consequences of your choices) - and as long we are aware of those > > > > > > consequences and communicate it to deployment managers - it's on > > > their > > > > > > shoulders to make the choices and bear the consequences. > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There could also be a few more side effects that we will have to > > > fully > > > > > >> uncover and come up > > > > > >> with a detailed plan to allow this to be configurable. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks & Regards, > > > > > >> Amogh Desai > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 6:43 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I think this is a good idea - but as Ash mentioned, it has to > be > > > > > >> executed > > > > > >> > well with a lot of bells and whistles, so that users will not > > > shoot > > > > > >> > themselves in their foot. For example we had recently > > discussions > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > >> > new UI whether/how to explain the users that their connections > > in > > > UI > > > > > and > > > > > >> > API **only** show the DB connections (for good reasons) - and > it > > > is > > > > > >> already > > > > > >> > difficult to explain to the users, now - this change will also > > > make > > > > it > > > > > >> > behave differently (for example - currently when you edit > > > connection > > > > > >> via UI > > > > > >> > it might **not** get into effect if you have same connection > > > defined > > > > > in > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > secret/env var. But if you make DB first - this changes and > > there > > > > are > > > > > >> few > > > > > >> > edge-cases where it might have some unexpected effect. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > But there is one inevitable benefit of this approach that I > > like - > > > > the > > > > > >> > ability of turning airflow DB into an effective "shield" for > > > secret > > > > > >> usage. > > > > > >> > The big drawback of the current "sequence" is that airflow > > > > generates a > > > > > >> LOT > > > > > >> > of queries to Secrets' manager, even if your connection is > > defined > > > > in > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > DB - because it will query secrets first. So currently it is > not > > > > > >> possible > > > > > >> > to say "for this, highly frequently used connection I want to > > keep > > > > it > > > > > >> in DB > > > > > >> > to save on the secret's manager queries - both performance and > > > cost > > > > > >> wise - > > > > > >> > because defining connection in the DB does not limit the > number > > of > > > > > >> secret > > > > > >> > manager's queries. So in a number of scenarios, being able to > > > revert > > > > > it > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > query DB first might be very good for cost and network > > > optimisation. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I think if we describe it (as Ash wrote) well in the docs and > > > > explain > > > > > >> those > > > > > >> > scenarios and also clearly communicate it in the UI if Airflow > > (we > > > > > need > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > likely have some way of explaining the user what is their > > > currently > > > > > >> > configured sequence and what they should expect to happen if > > they > > > > > >> > remove/add connection) - then I see it as a really useful > > feature. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > J. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 2:54 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > > a...@apache.org> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > At a high level I’m good with allowing this to be fully > > > > > configurable, > > > > > >> as > > > > > >> > > long as we document the possible warts (“Doctor, it hurts > > when I > > > > do > > > > > >> this” > > > > > >> > > “well don’t do that then!” etc) — though as Amogh mentioned > it > > > is > > > > > >> > slightly > > > > > >> > > complicated by the distinction between API Server/Scheduler > > and > > > > the > > > > > >> > > execution time on the worker. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > (I haven’t looked at the specific implementation yet) > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > -ash > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On 2 Jul 2025, at 11:56, Amogh Desai < > > > amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello Anton, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I’d love to > > understand > > > > > your > > > > > >> > > > motivations a bit more on this front. > > > > > >> > > > From your PR, I am seeing that you are just not allowing > > > > addition > > > > > of > > > > > >> > > > multiple custom backends > > > > > >> > > > but also changing the *default_backend* order. I am a bit > > torn > > > > on > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > > > part. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > The current design intentionally places the metadata DB > > > backend > > > > at > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > lowest precedence in the order, > > > > > >> > > > since it’s meant to serve as the ultimate fallback source > of > > > > > truth. > > > > > >> Any > > > > > >> > > > additional configured > > > > > >> > > > backends are prioritized higher than it by design. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > With your changes, we now allow configurations like: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > * @conf_vars({("secrets", "backends_order"): > > > > > >> > > > "metastore,environment_variable,unsupported"}) def > > > > > >> > > > test_backends_order_unsupported(self): with > > > > > >> > > > pytest.raises(AirflowConfigException): > > > > > >> > > ensure_secrets_loaded()* > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I don’t fully understand the motivation behind supporting > > this > > > > > >> level of > > > > > >> > > > override, especially since it > > > > > >> > > > could allow unsupported or unintended configurations. > > > > > Additionally, > > > > > >> > with > > > > > >> > > > Airflow 3.0+, we already support > > > > > >> > > > a multi layered secret backend resolution capability with > > the > > > > > >> > > introduction > > > > > >> > > > of secrets backend for workers. > > > > > >> > > > Order goes as: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > *secrets backend on worker directly (optional) > env vars > on > > > > > worker > > > > > >> > * > > > > > >> > > > *reach out to api server [secrets backend defined here > > > > (optional) > > > > > > > > > > > >> env > > > > > >> > > > vars on api server > metadata DB].* > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > You will have to consider this angle too. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > In my opinion, a more practical and realistic use case > would > > > be > > > > to > > > > > >> have > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > ability to define multiple custom backends > > > > > >> > > > both on worker or the API server. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Looking forward to hearing more from you. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > > >> > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:59 PM Anton Nitochkin < > > > > > >> > ant.nitoch...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Hello, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> I'd like to discuss a new option that can be added via > this > > > PR: > > > > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/45931. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Recently, I asked developers in Slack for their thoughts > on > > > the > > > > > new > > > > > >> > > >> variable [secrets]backend_order. Long story short: this > > > option > > > > > will > > > > > >> > > >> introduce the ability to configure the backend order and > > > > control > > > > > it > > > > > >> > > using > > > > > >> > > >> this variable. The default value will remain the same as > in > > > the > > > > > >> > current > > > > > >> > > >> version, so for users who don't need it, things will stay > > as > > > > they > > > > > >> are > > > > > >> > > now. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Jarek Potiuk advised starting a conversation and > discussing > > > the > > > > > PR > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > > reach > > > > > >> > > >> a consensus with the community. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Can you please share your thoughts on the option and its > > > > > >> > implementation? > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Anton Nitochkin > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
