Full-fledged REST API (that the UI also uses) would be great in 2.0.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:26 AM, David Kegley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > We have been using Airflow heavily for the last couple months and it’s been > great so far. Here are a few things we’d like to see prioritized in 2.0. > > 1) Role based access to DAGs: > We would like to see better role based access through the UI. There’s a > related ticket out there but it hasn’t seen any action in a few months > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-85 > > We use a templating system to create/deploy DAGs dynamically based on some > directory/file structure. This allows analysts to quickly deploy and schedule > their ETL code without having to interact with the Airflow installation > directly. It would be great if those same analysts could access to their own > DAGs in the UI so that they can clear DAG runs, mark success, etc. while > keeping them away from our core ETL and other people's/organization's DAGs. > Some of this can be accomplished with ‘filter by owner’ but it doesn’t > address the use case where a DAG can be maintained by multiple users in the > same organization when they have separate Airflow user accounts. > > 2) An option to turn off backfill: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-558 > For cases where a DAG does an insert overwrite on a table every day. This > might be a realistic option for the current version but I just wanted to call > attention to this feature request. > > Best, > David > > On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Maxime Beauchemin > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > *This is a brainstorm email thread about Airflow 2.0!* > > I wanted to share some ideas around what I would like to do in Airflow 2.0 > and would love to hear what others are thinking. I'll compile the ideas > that are shared in this thread in a Wiki once the conversation fades. > > ------------------------------------------- > > First idea, to get the conversation started: > > *Breaking down the package* > `pip install airflow-common airflow-scheduler airflow-webserver > airflow-operators-googlecloud ...` > > It seems to me like we're getting to a point where having different > repositories and different packages would make things much easier in all > sorts of ways. For instance the web server is a lot less sensitive than the > scheduler, and changes to operators should/could be deployed at will, > independently from the main package. People in their environment could > upgrade only certain packages when needed. Travis builds would be more > targeted, and take less time, ... > > Also, the whole current "extra_requires" approach to optional dependencies > (in setup.py) is kind getting out-of-hand. > > Of course `pip install airflow` would bring in a collection of sub-packages > similar in functionality to what it does now, perhaps without so many > operators you probably don't need in your environment. > > The release process is the main pain-point and the biggest risk for the > project, and I feel like this a solid solution to address it. > > Max >
