Late to the game here, but huge +1 to option B with Vincent's optimization as well.
Cheers, Niko On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 7:34 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > As mentioned in the PR , I agree with Vincent and said almost word for > word in the PR. > > Option A feels like a massive complexity for almost no real use case. > > -ash > > > On 22 Jun 2026, at 14:37, Vincent Beck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > On my side I lean towards option B, in my opinion users do not need to > configure such mapping, this is something Airflow can dictate. That would > avoid yet another option/complexity in Airflow. Also, going deeper in that > direction, do we actually need a mapping? Can we not just put the API path > as tag instead of having a mapping? These metrics are going to be read by > deployment manager, I do not know if providing a proxy name instead of the > API path would be actually helpful. > > > > On 2026/06/21 13:27:15 "Zhe-You(Jason) Liu" wrote: > >> Hi Henry, > >> > >> Thanks for working on this interesting feature for the upcoming 3.3 > Airflow > >> release. > >> Yes, I lean toward option A. > >> > >> Additionally, we could even make the API server disable the metrics > >> middleware if user explicitly sets the `api_path_prefix_to_surface` as > >> None, > >> With option A plus the None-aware handling, we can support the metrics > >> middleware with the further extensibility and the feature toggling. > >> > >> Best, > >> Jason > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 3:26 PM Henry Chen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I would like to start a discussion regarding the configuration design > for > >>> the new REST API and UI metrics feature currently being proposed in PR > >>> #64523 <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64523>. > >>> > >>> The core capability adds request monitoring (QPS, latency, and errors) > to > >>> Airflow’s FastAPI/Starlette stack. While there is general agreement > that > >>> having these metrics in production would be highly valuable, we have > hit a > >>> architectural design question regarding how users should configure > these > >>> metrics, and we’d love to get the community's feedback. > >>> The Core Question > >>> > >>> How flexible should the mapping between URL prefixes and metric tags ( > >>> api_surface) be for end-users? Currently, we have two design > directions: > >>> Option A (Current PR Design): Fully User-Configurable via JSON > >>> > >>> Allows deployment managers to define a custom mapping in airflow.cfg > >>> (e.g., {"/api/v2": > >>> "public", "/ui": "ui", "/execution": "execution", "/my-plugin": > "plugin"}). > >>> > >>> - > >>> > >>> *Pros:* High flexibility. It allows users to gain metrics coverage > for > >>> additional custom mounted APIs, Execution APIs, or third-party plugin > >>> routes without needing Airflow core code changes. > >>> - > >>> > >>> *Cons:* Adds slightly more complexity to the configuration. > >>> > >>> Option B (Alternative Suggestion): Hardcoded in Code with Simple > Toggles > >>> > >>> Airflow maintainers hardcode the specific route-to-tag mappings (e.g., > >>> strictly /api/v2 and /ui) directly in the codebase. Users would only > have a > >>> simple boolean flag to turn the metrics on or off, but cannot > customize the > >>> URL-to-tag mappings. > >>> > >>> - > >>> > >>> *Pros:* Simpler configuration, lower cognitive load for the average > >>> user. > >>> - > >>> > >>> *Cons:* Lacks extensibility for custom plugins or enterprise-specific > >>> API extensions. > >>> > >>> Discussion Context > >>> > >>> Jason suggested that allowing users to define the mapping themselves > >>> (Option A) provides the necessary extensibility for production > environments > >>> where custom plugins or additional mounted endpoints are heavily > utilized. > >>> On the other hand, ashb raised concerns about whether users actually > need > >>> this level of configurability and whether it duplicates existing metric > >>> filtering mechanisms. > >>> I really appreciate Jason, ashb, Pierre, and Jens taking the time to > share > >>> their insights on this. > >>> > >>> We would appreciate your thoughts on which approach makes more sense > for > >>> Airflow's architecture moving forward. > >>> > >>> You can find the full discussion and implementation details in the PR > here: > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64523 > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Henry > >>> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
