airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Riccomini <criccom...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Role Based Access Control for Airflow UI
Date Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:48:25 GMT
Invite sent for 8/2 from 3pm-5pm Pacific time! Here's the dial-in info:

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://wepay.zoom.us/j/994482435

Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll):  +16465588656,,994482435# or
+14086380968,,994482435#

Or Telephone:
    Dial: +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) or +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll)
    +1 855 880 1246 (US Toll Free)
    +1 877 369 0926 (US Toll Free)
    Meeting ID: 994 482 435
    International numbers available:
https://wepay.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=wHL1YsNLTvoAf8xdE8ki9yNEPVcus_eF


On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
wrote:

> Great! I'll send an invite.
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Dan Davydov <dan.davydov@airbnb.com.
> invalid> wrote:
>
>> Same as Alex, would be great to be able to remote in though I'm very
>> interested.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Alex Guziel <alex.guziel@airbnb.com
>> .invalid
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, I could call in but I probably won't be able to come down that
>> day.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Maxime Beauchemin <
>> > maximebeauchemin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Works for me! Dan said he might confcall in. Alex?
>> > >
>> > > Max
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Chris Riccomini <
>> criccomini@apache.org
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Wednesday 8/2 is perfect. Want to do it like 3-5? I booked a room
>> for
>> > 12
>> > > > people (and video conferencing) at WePay in this time slot. Should
>> > allow
>> > > > you to head home easily afterwards. :) That work for you guys?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Maxime Beauchemin <
>> > > > maximebeauchemin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > The week of the 31st sound good. Wednesday?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > About React we may not need a frontend lib like it (or at least
>> not
>> > > just
>> > > > > yet). We can talk about it at the meeting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Max
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Bolke de Bruin <
>> bdbruin@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > We avoid React for the same reasons as the ASF and use Polymer
2
>> > > > instead.
>> > > > > > Would that work?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bolke.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 20 Jul 2017, at 19:35, Chris Riccomini <
>> criccomini@apache.org
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hey Max,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Want to come down to WePay? We can set up a zoom for
those
>> that
>> > > want
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > join online, and record it as well to post for the
community.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Since Joy is just getting started, and it looks like
there's
>> > going
>> > > to
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > K8s discussion next week, maybe we can shoot for the
week
>> after
>> > > (the
>> > > > > week
>> > > > > > > of the 31st of July)? Care to float a few times that
week?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > > > Chris
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Maxime Beauchemin
<
>> > > > > > > maximebeauchemin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Sounds awesome, count me in!
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> * check out the prototype in my fork, I went far
enough to
>> hit
>> > > some
>> > > > > > >> hurdles, try different workarounds. I hooked up
the Airflow
>> > > > Bootstrap
>> > > > > > >> template too so that we feel at home in this new
UI
>> > > > > > >> * using a single `id` field is a requirement for
FAB that
>> > airflow
>> > > > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > >> respect (composite pks), either we add the feature
to support
>> > that
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > FAB,
>> > > > > > >> or we align on the Airflow side and modify the
models and
>> add a
>> > > > > > migration
>> > > > > > >> script. This upgrade would require downtime and
might be
>> > annoying
>> > > to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> Airflow community, but could help with db performance
a bit
>> > > (smaller
>> > > > > > >> index)... I probably could be convinced either
way but I'm
>> > leaning
>> > > > on
>> > > > > > >> improving FAB
>> > > > > > >> * I'm a maintainer for FAB so I can help get stuff
through
>> there
>> > > > > > >> * React is in limbo at the ASF for licensing reasons,
so no
>> > React
>> > > at
>> > > > > > least
>> > > > > > >> for now
>> > > > > > >> * npm/webpack/ES6, javascript only in `.js` files
>> > > > > > >> * I vote for eslint + eslint-config-airbnb as a
set of
>> linting
>> > > rules
>> > > > > > for JS
>> > > > > > >> * Keep out of apache (for now), this new app ships
as its own
>> > pypi
>> > > > > > package
>> > > > > > >> `airflow-webserver`, have a period of overlap (maintaining
2
>> web
>> > > > apps)
>> > > > > > >> before ripping out `airflow/www` from the core
package
>> > > > > > >> * You need to get in touch with Marty Kausas, an
intern at
>> > Airbnb
>> > > > > who's
>> > > > > > >> been working on a Flask blueprint for improved,
more
>> > personalized
>> > > > > views
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> DAGs that we were planning on merging into the
main branch
>> > > > eventually.
>> > > > > > Some
>> > > > > > >> of Marty's idea and code could be merged into this
effort.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> These are ideas on how I would proceed personally
on this but
>> > > > > definitely
>> > > > > > >> everything here is up for discussion.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Let's meet physically at either WePay or Airbnb.
Folks from
>> the
>> > > > > > community,
>> > > > > > >> let us know on this thread if you want to be part
of this
>> > effort,
>> > > > > we'll
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> happy to include you.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Max
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Joy Gao <joyg@wepay.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> Hey everyone,
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> I recently transferred to Data Infra team here
at WePay to
>> > focus
>> > > on
>> > > > > > >>> Airflow-related initiatives.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Given the RBAC design is mostly hashed out,
I'm happy to get
>> > this
>> > > > > > feature
>> > > > > > >>> off the ground for Q3, starting with converting
Airflow to
>> Fab,
>> > > if
>> > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >>> are no objections.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Cheers,
>> > > > > > >>> Joy
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Gurer Kiratli
<
>> > > > > > >>> gurer.kiratli@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Hey all,
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> We talked about this internally. We would
like to work on
>> this
>> > > > > feature
>> > > > > > >>> but
>> > > > > > >>>> given the immediate priorities we are not
going to be
>> working
>> > on
>> > > > it
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >>> Q3.
>> > > > > > >>>> Comes end of Q3 we will reevaluate. Likely
scenario is we
>> can
>> > > work
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> it
>> > > > > > >>>> late Q4 or Q12018.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Cheers,
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Gurer
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Chris
Riccomini <
>> > > > > > >> criccomini@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> I think FAB sounds like the right approach.
Waiting to
>> hear
>> > > back
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >>>> notes
>> > > > > > >>>>> on AirBNB H2 discussion to see if they
want to take this
>> up.
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> @Gurer, any idea when this will happen?
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Bolke
de Bruin <
>> > > > bdbruin@gmail.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> One downside I see from FAB is
that is does not do
>> Business
>> > > Role
>> > > > > > >>>> mapping
>> > > > > > >>>>>> to FAB role. I would prefer to
create groups in
>> IPA/LDAP/AD
>> > > and
>> > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > >>>>> those
>> > > > > > >>>>>> map to FAB roles instead of needing
to manage that in
>> FAB.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> B.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2017, at 09:36, Bolke
de Bruin <
>> > bdbruin@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for putting the thinking
in! It is about time
>> that
>> > we
>> > > > get
>> > > > > > >>> this
>> > > > > > >>>>>> moving.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> The design looks pretty sound.
One can argue about the
>> > > > different
>> > > > > > >>>> roles
>> > > > > > >>>>>> that are required, but that will
be situation dependent I
>> > > guess.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Implementation wise I would
argue together with Max that
>> > FAB
>> > > > is a
>> > > > > > >>>>> better
>> > > > > > >>>>>> or best fit. The ER model that
is being described is
>> pretty
>> > > > much a
>> > > > > > >>> copy
>> > > > > > >>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>> a normal security model. So a reimplementation
of that
>> is 1)
>> > > > > > >>>> significant
>> > > > > > >>>>>> duplication of effort and 2) bound
to have bugs that have
>> > been
>> > > > > > >> solved
>> > > > > > >>>> in
>> > > > > > >>>>>> the other framework. Moreover,
FAB does have integration
>> out
>> > > of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>> box
>> > > > > > >>>>>> with some enterprisey systems like
IPA, ActiveDirectory,
>> and
>> > > > LDAP.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> So while you argue that using
FAB would increase the
>> scope
>> > of
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>>> proposal significantly, but I think
that is not true.
>> Using
>> > > FAB
>> > > > > > >> would
>> > > > > > >>>>> allow
>> > > > > > >>>>>> you to focus on what kind of out-of-the-box
permission
>> sets
>> > > and
>> > > > > > >> roles
>> > > > > > >>>> we
>> > > > > > >>>>>> would need and maybe address some
issues that FAB lacks
>> > (maybe
>> > > > how
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >>>>> deal
>> > > > > > >>>>>> with non web access - ie. in DAGs,
maybe Kerberos,
>> probably
>> > > how
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > >>> deal
>> > > > > > >>>>>> with API calls that are not CRUD).
Implementation wise it
>> > > > probably
>> > > > > > >>>>>> simplifies what we need to do.
Maybe - using Max’s early
>> POC
>> > > as
>> > > > an
>> > > > > > >>>>> example
>> > > > > > >>>>>> - we can slowly move over?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On a side note: Im planning
to hire 2-3 ppl to work on
>> > > Airflow
>> > > > > > >>> coming
>> > > > > > >>>>>> year. Improvement of Security,
Enterprise Integration,
>> > Revamp
>> > > UI
>> > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>> todo list. However, this is not
confirmed yet as business
>> > > > > > >> priorities
>> > > > > > >>>>> might
>> > > > > > >>>>>> change.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Bolke.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 15 Jun 2017, at 21:45,
kalpesh dharwadkar <
>> > > > > > >>>>>> kalpeshdharwadkar@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> @Dan:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback.
I will remove the REFRESH_DAG
>> > > > > > >>> permission.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> @Max:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your response.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The scope of my proposal
was just to add RBAC security
>> > > feature
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Airflow
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> without replacing any existing
frameworks.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I understand that adopting
FAB would serve Airflow
>> better
>> > > > moving
>> > > > > > >>>>>> forward,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> however porting Airflow
to using FAB significantly
>> > increases
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>> scope
>> > > > > > >>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the proposal and I don't
have the time and expertise to
>> > > carry
>> > > > > > >> out
>> > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>> tasks
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in the extended scope.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hence, I'm curious to know
if there's a plan for
>> Airflow
>> > to
>> > > > > > >>> migrate
>> > > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>> FAB
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> this year?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Kalpesh
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at
6:16 PM, Maxime Beauchemin <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> maximebeauchemin@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It would be nice to
go with a framework for this. I
>> did
>> > > some
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> experimentation using
FlaskAppBuilder to go in this
>> > > > direction.
>> > > > > > >> It
>> > > > > > >>>>>> provides
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> auth on different authentication
backends out of the
>> box
>> > > > > > >> (oauth,
>> > > > > > >>>>>> openid,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ldap, registration,
...), generates perms for each
>> view
>> > > that
>> > > > > > >> has
>> > > > > > >>> an
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> @has_access decorator,
generates at set of perms for
>> each
>> > > ORM
>> > > > > > >>> model
>> > > > > > >>>>>> (show,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> edit, delete, add,
...) and enforces it in the CRUD
>> views
>> > > as
>> > > > > > >> well
>> > > > > > >>>> as
>> > > > > > >>>>>> in the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> generated REST api
that you get for free as a
>> byprdoduct
>> > of
>> > > > > > >>>> deriving
>> > > > > > >>>>>> FAB's
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> models (essentially
it's SqlAlchemy with a layer on
>> top).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I started a POC on
FAB here a while ago:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mistercrunch/airflow_webserver
at
>> the
>> > > > time
>> > > > > > >> my
>> > > > > > >>>>> main
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> motivation was the
free/instantaneous REST api.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think FAB is a decent
fit as the porting should be
>> > fairly
>> > > > > > >>>>>> straightforward
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (moving the flask views
over and deprecating
>> Flask-Admin
>> > in
>> > > > > > >> favor
>> > > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>> FAB's
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> crud) though there
was a few blockers. From memory I
>> > think
>> > > > FAB
>> > > > > > >>>> didn't
>> > > > > > >>>>>> like
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the compound PKs we
use in some of the Airflow models.
>> > We'd
>> > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >>>>>> either
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> write a db migration
script on the Airflow side, or
>> add
>> > > > support
>> > > > > > >>> for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> compound keys to FAB
(I recently became a maintainer
>> of
>> > the
>> > > > > > >>>> project,
>> > > > > > >>>>>> so I
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could help with that)
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The only downside of
FAB is that it's not as mature as
>> > > > > > >> something
>> > > > > > >>>> like
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Django, but porting
to Django would surely be much
>> more
>> > > work.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then there's the flask-security
suite, but that looks
>> > like
>> > > a
>> > > > > > >> bit
>> > > > > > >>>> of a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> patchwork to me, I
guess we can pick and choose which
>> we
>> > > want
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >>>> use.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Max
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017
at 12:50 PM, Dan Davydov <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> dan.davydov@airbnb.com.invalid>
wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Looks good to me
in general, thanks for putting this
>> > > > together!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I think the ability
to integrate with external RBAC
>> > > systems
>> > > > > > >> like
>> > > > > > >>>>> LDAP
>> > > > > > >>>>>> is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> important (i.e.
the Airflow DB should not be
>> decoupled
>> > > with
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >>>> RBAC
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> database wherever
possible).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't be too
worried about the permissions about
>> > > > > > >> refreshing
>> > > > > > >>>>>> DAGs, as
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> far as I know this
functionality is no longer
>> required
>> > > with
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >>>> new
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> webservers which
reload state periodically, and will
>> > > > certainly
>> > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > >>>>>> removed
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when we have a
better DAG consistency story.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I think it would
also be good to think about this
>> > > > > > >>>>>> proposal/implementation
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and how it applied
in the API-driven world (e.g. when
>> > > > > > >> webserver
>> > > > > > >>>> hits
>> > > > > > >>>>>> APIs
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> like /clear on
behalf of users instead of running
>> > commands
>> > > > > > >>> against
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> database directly).
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 12,
2017 at 11:12 AM, Bolke de Bruin <
>> > > > > > >>>> bdbruin@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Will respond
but im traveling at the moment. Give
>> me a
>> > > few
>> > > > > > >>> days.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my
iPhone
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 Jun
2017, at 13:39, Chris Riccomini <
>> > > > > > >>>> criccomini@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checking
in on this. We spent a good chunk of time
>> > > > thinking
>> > > > > > >>>> about
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> want to
move forward with it, but want to make sure
>> > > we're
>> > > > > > >> all
>> > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> same
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> page.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Max? Bolke?
Dan? Jeremiah?
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
Jun 8, 2017 at 1:49 PM, kalpesh dharwadkar
>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> kalpeshdharwadkar@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello
everyone,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As
you all know, currently Airflow doesn’t have a
>> > > > built-in
>> > > > > > >>> Role
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Based
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Access
Control(RBAC) capability.  It does provide
>> > very
>> > > > > > >>> limited
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> authorization
capability by providing admin,
>> > > > data_profiler,
>> > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>> user
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> roles.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> However,
associating these roles to authenticated
>> > > > > > >> identities
>> > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > >>>>> not
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
effort.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To
address this issue, I have created a design
>> > proposal
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >>>>>> building
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> RBAC
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> into
Airflow and simplifying user access
>> management
>> > via
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>>> Airflow
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> UI.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The
design proposal is located at
>> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+RBAC+proposal
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any
comments/questions/feedback are much
>> appreciated.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalpesh
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> --
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Joy Gao
>> > > > > > >>> Software Engineer
>> > > > > > >>> 350 Convention Way, Suite 200
>> > > > > > >>> Redwood City, CA 94063
>> > > > > > >>> Mobile:  669-224-9305
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Payments partner to the platform economy
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

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