Looks great to me, thanks for doing this Jens! On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:55 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Very nice. While the docs look less "doc-like" - they are far more usable > :) > > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 11:07 PM Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Great initiative Jens! > > > > > > Shahat > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2026, 22:12 Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Airflow Devs, > > > > > > since a while a deprecation in sphinx-redoc holds us back in upgrading > > > setuptools, our attempt to contribute a fix is not helping as the > > > sphinx-contrib seems to be un-maintained (see > > > https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/redoc/pull/54). Unless we fork or > find > > > other means we need to upper-pin setuptools because of breaking change > > > in setuptools. > > > > > > Therefore I looked a bit around and propose to replace Redoc in our > > > Sphinx docbuild with Swagger using the "swagger-plugin-for-sphinx" (see > > > https://github.com/SAP/swagger-plugin-for-sphinx) which seems better > > > maintained (and I contributed a small feature few days ago in 7.1.0). > > > > > > I prepared the PR https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/67390 to show > > > and also pushed some generated dcos with this to our staged site: > > > > > > * Airflow Core: > > > > > > > > > https://airflow.staged.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/stable-rest-api-ref.html > > > * Simple Auth Manager API: > > > > > > > > > https://airflow.staged.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow/stable/core-concepts/auth-manager/simple/sam-token-api-ref.html > > > * FAB: > > > > > > > > > https://airflow.staged.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow-providers-fab/stable/api-ref/fab-api-ref.html > > > * Keycloak: > > > > > > > > > https://airflow.staged.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow-providers-keycloak/stable/api-ref/token-api-ref.html > > > * Edge3 (new! in this PR, now also has API docs!): > > > > > > > > > https://airflow.staged.apache.org/docs/apache-airflow-providers-edge3/stable/edge-api-ref.html > > > > > > Is anybody against this or shall we raise a discussion on this? Else > I'd > > > hope with nobody objecting propose to merge this, if desired can make a > > > LAZY CONSENSUS as well but only if a discussion arises, else it is > > > rather treated as a smaller SW change. > > > > > > Jens > > > > > >
