Hi folks, Thanks for all the feedback regarding to the new Airflow Webserver UI <https://github.com/wepay/airflow-webserver/>! I've been actively addressing all the bugs that were raised on Github. So I want to take this opportunity to discuss two issues coming up:
The first issue is unaddressed PRs in FAB. If these PRs continue to stay unaddressed, RBAC is blocked from making further progress. If this continue to be an issue, I'm inclined to fork FAB, even though it's not idealistic. - PR/631 <https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder/pull/631> Binary column support (merged, unreleased) <https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder/pull/631> - PR/639 <https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder/pull/639> Composite primary key support (unmerged) - PR/655 <https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder/pull/655> Form prefill support (unmerged) The second issue is an open question about the next step of Airflow Webserver itself. Here are the 3 potential directions we could take, and I've added my thought on each. 1. Permanently keep Airflow Webserver as a separated package from Airflow, and treat it as another UI option. Keep `www` in Airflow. Allow development on both UIs. *I'm not a fan of this. When there is an existing UI in Airflow, most contributors would prefer to maintain the official version that is installed out-of-the-box. **Having a second UI outside of Airflow will make maintaining it very difficult, leading to an eventual death of the new UI :(* 2. Permanently keep Airflow Webserver as a separated package from Airflow, but freeze all development on `www` and direct all future UI development to Airflow Webserver, eventually removing `www` completely when Airflow Webserver is stable. *I'm not a fan of this either. First of all, the views and models are tightly coupled in both old and new UI; until we have a full-fledged REST API to build the UI (and cli) on top of it, separating them to a separate package now will potentially cause dependency issues and add complication to our release cycle. **Secondly, **majority of Airflow users run Airflow with the UI; it's one of Airflow's best features. Separating UI out of Airflow core will complicate setup and configuration, while making Airflow core less complete.* 3. Merge Airflow Webserver back into Airflow as `www2`, freeze all development on `www`, eventually removing `www` completely when `www2` is stable. *This makes the most sense to me. Airflow Webserver is developed with the goal of feature parity to the current UI, plus additional RBAC capability, in hope to replace the old UI completely. Yes, this means there will be a short period of having to maintain two UIs, but once we freeze development on www, it shouldn't be a concern for long.* I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this! I'm excited about bringing RBAC to airflow and I hope it's something others will find useful as well! Cheers, Joy On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Joy Gao <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you everyone for the active feedback so far, and thanks for setting > up the demo Maxime! > > Going to work on pruning through the issues in the upcoming days. > > Fokko/Maxime, do you recall the SQLAlchemy Exception message so I can look > into it? Otherwise I'll wait until it's down again =P > > Cheers, > > Joy > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Maxime Beauchemin < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I just restarted it, not sure how long it will take to get in a bad state >> again... >> >> Max >> >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Driesprong, Fokko <[email protected] >> > >> wrote: >> >> > Good morning, >> > >> > The demo provided by Max is down, it throws a SQLAlchemyexception :'( >> > >> > Cheers, Fokko >> > >> > 2017-11-18 19:14 GMT+01:00 Chris Riccomini <[email protected]>: >> > >> > > @bolke, open issues on the Github repo, please. >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Chris, >> > > > >> > > > Do you want us to report bugs somewhere (I have encountered a few)? >> Or >> > > > just generic user experiences posted here? >> > > > >> > > > Cheers >> > > > Bolke >> > > > >> > > > > On 18 Nov 2017, at 00:47, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hey all, >> > > > > >> > > > > I know the weekend is coming up, and for those of us in the US, >> next >> > > week >> > > > > is a bit of a slow holiday week. Would love to get some feedback >> from >> > > > > everyone on this. The goal would ideally to be to converge on this >> > and >> > > > > eventually replace the existing Airflow UI with this one. >> > > > > >> > > > > Cheers, >> > > > > Chris >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Joy Gao <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi guys. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I've been working on moving airflow from Flask-Admin to >> > > Flask-AppBuilder >> > > > >> for RBAC >> > > > >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/ >> > > > Airflow+RBAC+proposal >> > > > >>> , >> > > > >> check it out at https://github.com/wepay/airflow-webserver. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> It's still a work-in-progress, but most features you see in the >> > > > webserver >> > > > >> UI today is available there. For those who are interested in >> RBAC, >> > I'd >> > > > love >> > > > >> to get some early feedback in terms of the following: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - New Flask-AppBuilder UI (any bugs/regressions) >> > > > >> - Setup issues >> > > > >> - Ease of integration with third party auth (i.e. LDAP, AD, >> OAuth, >> > > etc.) >> > > > >> - Any other thoughts/concerns >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Thanks a lot! >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Cheers, >> > > > >> Joy >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
