> It may be doable to run this as a different package `airflow-webserver`, an > alternate UI at first, and to eventually rip out the old UI off of the main > package.
This is the same strategy that I was thinking of for AIRFLOW-85. You can build the new UI in parallel, and then delete the old one later. I really think that a REST interface should be a pre-req to any large/new UI changes, though. Getting unified so that everything is driven through REST will be a big win. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Maxime Beauchemin <[email protected]> wrote: > A multi-tenant UI with composable roles on top of granular permissions. > > Migrating from Flask-Admin to Flask App Builder would be an easy-ish win > (since they're both Flask). FAB Provides a good authentication and > permission model that ships out-of-the-box with a REST api. Suffice to > define FAB models (derivative of SQLAlchemy's model) and you get a set of > perms for the model (can_show, can_list, can_add, can_change, can_delete, > ...) and a set of CRUD REST endpoints. It would also allow us to rip out > the authentication backend code out of Airflow and rely on FAB for that. > Also every single view gets permissions auto-created for it, and there are > easy way to define row-level type filters based on user permissions. > > It may be doable to run this as a different package `airflow-webserver`, an > alternate UI at first, and to eventually rip out the old UI off of the main > package. > > https://flask-appbuilder.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > > I'd love to carve some time and lead this. > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > >>
