Using FAB's Model, we get pretty much all of that (REST API, auth/perms, CRUD) for free: http://flask-appbuilder.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickhowto.html?highlight=rest#exposed-methods
I'm pretty intimate with FAB since I use it (and contributed to it) for Superset/Caravel. All that's needed is to derive FAB's model class instead of SqlAlchemy's model class (which FAB's model wraps and adds functionality to and is 100% compatible AFAICT). Max On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > >> >
