airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Pot...@polidea.com>
Subject Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove remote mode in Airflow CLI and in-core API Client
Date Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:12:50 GMT
I think no matter what, Maybe we should simply make it deprecated in the
upcoming (today?) release of 1.10.12 ? Then we can decide if in -
potential  - 1.10.13 we remove it or leave it as it is.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:37 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
wrote:

> I started this thread mainly to discuss what we want to do with this remote
> mode prior to the Airflow 2.0 release. This is mainly due to the fact that
> he is using an experimental API which will be deprecated.
>
> In my opinion, we have several solutions.
> a) Delete this mode as unused and not supported.
> b) Rewrite in-core API client to support stable API
> c) Prepare OpenAPI based client and rewrite CLI to use it
> d) Leave as-is
>
> There were various expectations on the mailing list about this mode, but I
> haven't seen anyone actively contribute to it. This brings me further
> questions. Does anyone use this mode in its current form? If no one is
> using it, I think we can take more radical steps to start with a blank
> page. This will make it easier to start work and be able to iterate over it
> faster in the future. This looks like a simple task, but if we want to be
> sure that no breaking-changes are made, we should pay off some technical
> debt and increase testing coverage before we can think about making more
> changes. It may not be necessary if we choose a different path of
> development.
>
> I think now is a good time to try to make some decisions if someone is
> actually interested in developing these features. I do not think we need a
> precise vision of the development, if currently this feature is not used by
> anyone and no one is really interested in its development.
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 7:16 AM QP Hou <qph@scribd.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's best to divide the discussion into two separate topics.
> >
> > First one is to replace the existing json_client with the new to be
> created
> > official Airflow Python Client backed by the new RESTful API. This IMHO
> is
> > a must have considering we are to deprecate experimental API going
> forward.
> >
> > The second topic is to create a better CLI experience leveraging the new
> > APIs. This is much more controversial. I remember us having a
> > similar discussion in the dev list a year ago, which didn't get much
> > traction. It's not possible to fit all existing CLI functionalities into
> > REST APIs. DB utils use-case that Ash mentioned is a great example. So I
> > think one potential solution is to split the CLI into two. Keep the
> > existing CLI as the admin/management CLI can communicate directly with
> the
> > DB and taps into airflow core code base. On the other hand, we can
> create a
> > separate user facing CLI that's light weight, fast and remote only. It
> > doesn't even need to be written in python to make it easier to distribute
> > as a single binary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > QP Hou
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:44 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > -1 from me without a firm plan how we will replace it.
> > >
> > > I see keeping it and extending to use the new API would ensure that
> > > everything the CLI can do locally (i.e. when airflow webserver isn't up
> > > yet, with the ) also works over the API with the exception of db
> > utilities.
> > >
> > > -ash
> > >
> > > On 11 August 2020 20:05:56 BST, QP Hou <qph@scribd.com> wrote:
> > > >+1 for replacing the existing remote mode client with the open api
> > > >based
> > > >client. IMO, we don't really have other options here because the
> > > >experimental API will be deprecated in the future.
> > > >
> > > >For OpenAPI based Airflow REST clients, the current plan is to
> maintain
> > > >all
> > > >the code gen automation within the main source tree [1], then use it
> to
> > > >populate each individual language specific client repo like the go
> > > >client
> > > >mentioned earlier. So far, we have the go client completed and
> > > >validated to
> > > >make sure this development flow will meet our needs. The next step I
> > > >think
> > > >the community should focus on is getting API auth implemented [2]
> > > >before we
> > > >move on to generate the python client. How we do API auth could have a
> > > >big
> > > >impact on client code gen automation, so it is worth waiting for.
> > > >
> > > >Once we have authentication implemented in both Airflow core and
> > > >clients,
> > > >we should be all good to start doing version releases for our API
> > > >clients.
> > > >
> > > >That said, adopting open api based clients in the CLI alone won't
> > > >address
> > > >the issue of CLI depending on full airflow installation. Some of the
> > > >cli
> > > >commands like `dags test` depend on a full airflow installation by
> > > >design.
> > > >We will have to either develop a separate CLI intended for remote only
> > > >use
> > > >or add a flag in the existing cli so it can run in a pure remote mode
> > > >where
> > > >it would disable loading of code that requires airflow installation
> > > >entirely.
> > > >
> > > >[1]: https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/master/clients,
> > > >[2]: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/8112
> > > >
> > > >On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:05 AM Kamil Breguła
> > > ><kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> I think we should remove remote mode in CLI and in-core API Client
> > > >> (airflow.api.client package).
> > > >> Here is docs about remote mode:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://airflow.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage-cli.html#set-up-connection-to-a-remote-airflow-instance
> > > >>
> > > >> Since these features were introduced, it has never been actively
> > > >developed
> > > >> and I don't think it's widely used. At the same time, Apache Airflow
> > > >is
> > > >> evolving, and this code stands out more and more from the rest.
> > > >>
> > > >> My main reservations about these features:
> > > >> - Remote mode/in-core API Client is rarely used. I asked a few
> people
> > > >and
> > > >> none of them used it in production. Does anyone use it?
> > > >> - A very small number of commands are available (7 pools command and
> > > >2 dags
> > > >> command only)
> > > >> - Remote mode/API Client depends on experimental REST API.
> > > >> - Remote mode/API Client is a handwritten code that is difficult to
> > > >> maintain.
> > > >> - No documentation for API client
> > > >> - Remote mode/API Client has low test coverage.
> > > >> - Remote mode does not provide a good level of security, because it
> > > >depends
> > > >> on experimental API. There is the only authentication, but the
> > > >> authenticated user can perform any operation.
> > > >> - Requires full Airflow to be installed along with a large number
of
> > > >> unnecessary dependencies. Some of them are difficult to install in
> > > >some
> > > >> environments, e.g. setproctitle on Windows
> > > >> - Using this client API changes the logger configuration because it
> > > >> requires importing the airflow package.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think this remote mode in CLI is something valuable, but I think
> we
> > > >can
> > > >> do it in a different way in the future, e.g. generate a CLI/API
> > > >Client
> > > >> based on the OpenAPI specification.
> > > >>
> > > >> Generated API clients can be installed independently of airflow and
> > > >will be
> > > >> easier to maintain. We already have one API client for golang
> > > >implemented
> > > >> in this way, so new languages will only be developing this idea.
> > > >> - https://github.com/apache/airflow-client-go
> > > >>
> > > >> I will be happy to discuss the vision of the development of these
> two
> > > >> things. How do we want to develop these two things?
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Kamil Bregula
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message