A bit of related history here: https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder/issues/399
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Maxime Beauchemin < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >
