Given I have merge rights on FAB I could probably do another round of review and get your PRs through. I would really like to get the main maintainer's input on things that touch the core (composite-key support) as he might have concerns/intuitions that we can't know about.
I do not have Pypi access though so I cannot push new releases out. I could ask for that. I've threatened to fork the project before, that's always an option. I've noticed his involvement is sporadic and comes in bursts. In the meantime, you can have the dependency in Airflow Webserver pointing straight to your fork. Max On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Joy Gao <[email protected]> wrote: > I just created a new webserver instance if you haven't gotten a chance to > fiddle around with the new web UI and the RBAC configurations (thanks > Maxime for getting started with this earlier!): > > http://104.209.38.171:8080/ > > Admin Account > username: admin > password: admin > > Read-Only Account > username: viewer > password: password > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joy Gao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
