Looks good to me.
+1. Binding
Can we resume the vote?
J.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:17 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> That's right The authentication will be based on Connexion. However,
> this will not be necessary. Users will be able to add a new
> authentication method if necessary. For example, you can easily
> integrate Airflow with your own identity proxy, which will provide
> permissions using the JWT token in HTTP headers.
>
> The author of the authentication method will have to set the user
> attribute in Flask context. FAB and flask_login work in the same way.
> A simple code example that authenticates a user with an HTTP header
> looks like this.
>
> from flask import request, g
>
> REMOTE_USER_HEADER = 'REMOTE_USER'
>
> username = request.headers.get(REMOTE_USER_HEADER)
> if not username:
> raise AuthenticationProblem(
> 403, "Forbidden", f"Header {REMOTE_USER_HEADER} is missing in
> the request"
> )
>
> if not request.authorization:
> user = current_app.appbuilder.sm.auth_user_remote_user(username)
> if user is None:
> raise AuthenticationProblem(
> 403, "Forbidden", f"Not authorized"
> )
> log.info("User authorized: %s", user)
> g.user = user
>
> It will be easy to add more methods, but I would not like this AIP-32
> to deal with specific authentication methods. Authentication methods
> depend on the organization and it is not possible to create a
> universal mechanism.
>
> The authorization will be based on FAB. The user will be able to
> customize the mechanism through SECURITY_MANAGER_CLASS option in
> [AIRFLOW_HOME]/webserver_config.py file. Identical to the webserver.
> We will use the same code.
>
> Best regards,
> Kamil
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 9:59 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think the main idea here was to delegate the authentication to what
> > connexion provides (it has various authentication plugins). And I agree
> > authorization should be addressed in the design as it cannot be solved by
> > connexion "standard" plugins nor Open API definition - this is more of
> > application choice.
> >
> > I think we should get som simple, yet configurable mechanism for
> > authorization - which should be similar to what we have in FAB now but we
> > should learn from its problems. I think we should first agree on the
> > principles and features we want to achieve and then decide how to
> proceed.
> >
> > What I think this authorization system for the API should/should not do
> > (this is my personal view - others might have different opinion, so feel
> > free to express yours):
> >
> > * it should not be view-centered but API endpoint-centered.
> > * It should allow assigning the users to different Roles - example roles
> -
> > "Admin", "Editor", ....
> > * It should allow to bundle several API calls together and assign rights
> to
> > the API "bundles" to the user roles. Example "connections", "dags",
> "pools"
> > .... . Again - those should be per API not per View.
> > * the Bundles should have "Read"/"Write" access types
> > * the Roles do not have to have UI to manage it - it could be done by a
> > configuration file
> > * it should be discoverable - the UI code should be able to discover
> which
> > API Bundles it has access to (this will allow implementing dynamic views
> > that will adapt to the different Roles).
> > * optionally the users should have the capability of constraining rights
> to
> > certain resources per "resource" (so for example access to some dags
> only).
> > We could implement a very simple 1-1 mapping of the current "owner"
> > approach, and in the future, we could implement "User Groups" and have
> > "Resource-per-Group" authorization. I don't think it is for Airflow 2.0
> and
> > we should add it later (this is application level rather than API level
> > feature).
> >
> > J.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:31 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > -1 (binding) for the moment, sorry. This is mostly because of the
> proposed
> > > permissions solution.
> > >
> > > I am happy with the spec-first approach, and feel we can get there on
> > > the exact API methods, what IDs we expose or don't etc, but this
> > > permissions is a deal breaker for me as it stands.
> > >
> > > From your last response I am still not sure 100% what you are
> proposing,
> > > and it feels like we are fighting against FAB rather than working with
> > > it. For example you say:
> > >
> > > > all we have to do is replace steps 4 and retrieve information from
> the
> > > > code, not the database.
> > >
> > > Do the permissions management screens in FAB still work -- i.e. can
> > > someone choose to give a user/role access to only a single API
> endpoint?
> > > If so how do we achieve that without having to re-write the Security
> > > screens from FAB.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the FAB database approach that means we have to
> > > re-write or
> > > customize it's behavoiur?
> > >
> > > Yes our current permissions approach isn't great, but that is just how
> > > we've "chosen" to do it in Airflow, it's not a problem with the
> > > underlying permissions model. For example a different way of doing it:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7251/files#diff-948e87b4f8f644b3ad8c7950958df033R2719-R2722
> > >
> > > This added a (AJAX-style) method to DagModelView, and reuses the
> > > "can_list" permission to achive it - because the "action"/verb is about
> > > listing, it doesn't ever make sense to deny autocompletion if you can
> > > list.
> > >
> > > If I understand your proposal correctly, you are suggesting something
> > > like "can_edit_variable on APIView"? Why not "can_edit on
> > > Variable" (or VariableView), and then that one permission could apply
> to
> > > web UI and API. (Without the "on X" part I think a lot fo FAB won't
> work
> > > right.)
> > >
> > > So specific things I want to see addressed before I will +1 this.
> > >
> > > - How do we manage API permissions for custom roles? (i.e. do the
> > > existing screens work, how usable are they?)
> > > - What "ViewMenu" is the permission tied to?
> > > - What do these look like the Security screens?
> > > - How do we manage these API permissions on a per-DAG level?
> > > - Are we unifying the API permissions and the front end-permissions?
> > >
> > > I feel we are close on this AIP!
> > >
> > > Ash
> > >
> > > On Thu Mar 19, 2020 at 10:55 AM, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > > +1 binding
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > +1 binding
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:29 AM Kamil Bregu=C5=82a
> > > <kamil.bregula@polide=
> > > > a.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This email calls for a vote on the design proposed in AIP-32,
> found
> > > her=
> > > > e
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-32%3A+Airflow+RES=
> > > > T+API
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r2a0d0fb3d4610432fa52148d7d9e59c7632=
> > > > dd8f2fa61a580430b814c%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A few notes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - The proposed in AIP is to use an the "Specs first" approach.
> > > > > > First, we make the change in the openapi.yaml file, and then
> > > > > > we change the code.
> > > > > > - This AIP allows for high granulation. Many people can work on
> > > > > > smaller independent tasks. Already the application from
> Outreachy
> > > > > > internships asked me how they can work on this AIP.
> > > > > > - Details of the API structure may still change until the first
> > > version
> > > > > > is released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This vote will last for 72 hours until 2020-03-22T10:30Z, and
> until
> > > at
> > > > > > least 3 votes have been cast.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=3D20200322T1030=
> > > > &p1=3D262
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is my +1 vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Kamil
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --=20
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
--
Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
