You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> on 2019/11/27 10:07:27 UTC
Improving the Airflow UI
Hi everyone,
We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to work on to improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could improve Airflow would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and less grown-over-time :)
A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in the UI
- Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can take via the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the Task Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any of the TI pages.
- Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially noticeable now that we've redesigned the project website.
- Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of power in there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented that could be improved.
- Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of work, especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate discussion, but we want to work on this.)
We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking about using React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could do this:
- We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static pages in place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
- A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the page, but keep parts of it server-rendered.
- A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just speaks to an API server.
The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver" we had with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both for development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if we do decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear guidelines on how to structure and test the code, and better yet machine-enforce rules.
Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui on slack and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the approach we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut maybe that isn't a requirement here..
Thoughts?
-ash
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Bolke de Bruin <bd...@gmail.com>.
+1
The react issue was solved some time ago and is fine to use. A challenge might be to keep track of all the licenses of the subcomponents react can pull in. Superset has some experience there. Superset is also based around the same components as airflow (FAB/React)
B.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 28 Nov 2019, at 01:06, Kevin Yang <yr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for starting this discussion/initiative! Love it. Not a frontend
> guy but react looks fine. +1 for Dan's point of making it more testable.
> Great opportunity to establish a better UI baseline.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin Y
>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed it's been re-licenced. It was more than licence for Facebook, it was
>> BSD+Patent clause that is still forbidden by Apache
>> <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x>. (but React is now
>> OK).
>>
>> In favour of React JS, we have quite good experience.
>>
>> BTW. Just a thought. Maybe for the choice of server API + UI technology we
>> can reach out and ask other Apache projects. I think there are some
>> specific of open-source projects that might make some technologies better
>> suitable than others and maybe we could try to learn from other's mistakes
>> :).
>>
>> J.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:15 PM Alex Guziel <alex.guziel@airbnb.com
>> .invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue was before they re-licensed it. Now I believe the issue is put
>> to
>>> bed as MIT is Apache compatible.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
>>>> this issue?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
>>>> <Co...@morningstar.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> React is currently licensed under MIT.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>>>>
>>>>> Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
>>>>>
>>>>> project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for
>> Facebook.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is license for Angular:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
>>>>>
>>>>> <dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ).
>>>> Hopefully
>>>>>
>>>>>> will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well.
>>>> Another thing
>>>>>
>>>>>> to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of
>> the
>>>> UI. E.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>> being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g.
>>>> visualize data
>>>>>
>>>>>> in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a
>>>> front-end guy
>>>>>
>>>>>> either, but React seems like a fine choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <
>>> ash@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like
>> to
>>>> work on to
>>>>>
>>>>>>> improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could
>>>> improve Airflow
>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed
>> and
>>>> less
>>>>>
>>>>>>> grown-over-time :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add
>> in
>>>> the UI
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you
>>> can
>>>> take via
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via
>> the
>>>> Task
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on
>>> any
>>>> of the TI
>>>>>
>>>>>>> pages.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially
>>>> noticeable
>>>>>
>>>>>>> now that we've redesigned the project website.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of
>>>> power in
>>>>>
>>>>>>> there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented
>>>> that could be
>>>>>
>>>>>>> improved.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk
>>> of
>>>> work,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> especially the backend component for this and is a whole
>>> separate
>>>>>
>>>>>>> discussion, but we want to work on this.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking
>>>> about using
>>>>>
>>>>>>> React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we
>>> could
>>>> do this:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static
>>>> pages in
>>>>>
>>>>>>> place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the
>>>> page, but
>>>>>
>>>>>>> keep parts of it server-rendered.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just
>>>> speaks to an
>>>>>
>>>>>>> API server.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual
>>> webserver"
>>>> we had
>>>>>
>>>>>>> with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both
>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>>>> development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so
>>> if
>>>> we do
>>>>>
>>>>>>> decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear
>>>> guidelines on
>>>>>
>>>>>>> how to structure and test the code, and better yet
>>>> machine-enforce rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in
>> #sig-ui
>>>> on slack
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and
>>> the
>>>> approach
>>>>>
>>>>>>> we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite
>>>> when it comes
>>>>>
>>>>>>> to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced
>> buuut
>>>> maybe that
>>>>>
>>>>>>> isn't a requirement here..
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -ash
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jarek Potiuk
>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>>
>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Kevin Yang <yr...@gmail.com>.
Thank you for starting this discussion/initiative! Love it. Not a frontend
guy but react looks fine. +1 for Dan's point of making it more testable.
Great opportunity to establish a better UI baseline.
Cheers,
Kevin Y
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:
> Indeed it's been re-licenced. It was more than licence for Facebook, it was
> BSD+Patent clause that is still forbidden by Apache
> <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x>. (but React is now
> OK).
>
> In favour of React JS, we have quite good experience.
>
> BTW. Just a thought. Maybe for the choice of server API + UI technology we
> can reach out and ask other Apache projects. I think there are some
> specific of open-source projects that might make some technologies better
> suitable than others and maybe we could try to learn from other's mistakes
> :).
>
> J.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:15 PM Alex Guziel <alex.guziel@airbnb.com
> .invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > The issue was before they re-licensed it. Now I believe the issue is put
> to
> > bed as MIT is Apache compatible.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
> > > this issue?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
> > > <Co...@morningstar.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > React is currently licensed under MIT.
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
> > > >
> > > > On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> > > >
> > > > Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
> > > >
> > > > project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for
> Facebook.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is license for Angular:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
> > > >
> > > > <dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ).
> > > Hopefully
> > > >
> > > > > will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well.
> > > Another thing
> > > >
> > > > > to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of
> the
> > > UI. E.g.
> > > >
> > > > > being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g.
> > > visualize data
> > > >
> > > > > in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a
> > > front-end guy
> > > >
> > > > > either, but React seems like a fine choice.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > ash@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like
> to
> > > work on to
> > > >
> > > > > > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could
> > > improve Airflow
> > > >
> > > > > > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed
> and
> > > less
> > > >
> > > > > > grown-over-time :)
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add
> in
> > > the UI
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you
> > can
> > > take via
> > > >
> > > > > > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via
> the
> > > Task
> > > >
> > > > > > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on
> > any
> > > of the TI
> > > >
> > > > > > pages.
> > > >
> > > > > > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially
> > > noticeable
> > > >
> > > > > > now that we've redesigned the project website.
> > > >
> > > > > > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of
> > > power in
> > > >
> > > > > > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented
> > > that could be
> > > >
> > > > > > improved.
> > > >
> > > > > > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk
> > of
> > > work,
> > > >
> > > > > > especially the backend component for this and is a whole
> > separate
> > > >
> > > > > > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking
> > > about using
> > > >
> > > > > > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we
> > could
> > > do this:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static
> > > pages in
> > > >
> > > > > > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> > > >
> > > > > > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the
> > > page, but
> > > >
> > > > > > keep parts of it server-rendered.
> > > >
> > > > > > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just
> > > speaks to an
> > > >
> > > > > > API server.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual
> > webserver"
> > > we had
> > > >
> > > > > > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both
> > for
> > > >
> > > > > > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so
> > if
> > > we do
> > > >
> > > > > > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear
> > > guidelines on
> > > >
> > > > > > how to structure and test the code, and better yet
> > > machine-enforce rules.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in
> #sig-ui
> > > on slack
> > > >
> > > > > > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and
> > the
> > > approach
> > > >
> > > > > > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite
> > > when it comes
> > > >
> > > > > > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced
> buuut
> > > maybe that
> > > >
> > > > > > isn't a requirement here..
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > -ash
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.
Indeed it's been re-licenced. It was more than licence for Facebook, it was
BSD+Patent clause that is still forbidden by Apache
<https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x>. (but React is now
OK).
In favour of React JS, we have quite good experience.
BTW. Just a thought. Maybe for the choice of server API + UI technology we
can reach out and ask other Apache projects. I think there are some
specific of open-source projects that might make some technologies better
suitable than others and maybe we could try to learn from other's mistakes
:).
J.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:15 PM Alex Guziel <al...@airbnb.com.invalid>
wrote:
> The issue was before they re-licensed it. Now I believe the issue is put to
> bed as MIT is Apache compatible.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
> > this issue?
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
> > <Co...@morningstar.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > React is currently licensed under MIT.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
> > >
> > > On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> > >
> > > Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
> > >
> > > project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is license for Angular:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
> > >
> > > <dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ).
> > Hopefully
> > >
> > > > will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well.
> > Another thing
> > >
> > > > to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the
> > UI. E.g.
> > >
> > > > being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g.
> > visualize data
> > >
> > > > in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a
> > front-end guy
> > >
> > > > either, but React seems like a fine choice.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> ash@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to
> > work on to
> > >
> > > > > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could
> > improve Airflow
> > >
> > > > > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and
> > less
> > >
> > > > > grown-over-time :)
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in
> > the UI
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you
> can
> > take via
> > >
> > > > > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the
> > Task
> > >
> > > > > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on
> any
> > of the TI
> > >
> > > > > pages.
> > >
> > > > > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially
> > noticeable
> > >
> > > > > now that we've redesigned the project website.
> > >
> > > > > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of
> > power in
> > >
> > > > > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented
> > that could be
> > >
> > > > > improved.
> > >
> > > > > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk
> of
> > work,
> > >
> > > > > especially the backend component for this and is a whole
> separate
> > >
> > > > > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking
> > about using
> > >
> > > > > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we
> could
> > do this:
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static
> > pages in
> > >
> > > > > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> > >
> > > > > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the
> > page, but
> > >
> > > > > keep parts of it server-rendered.
> > >
> > > > > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just
> > speaks to an
> > >
> > > > > API server.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual
> webserver"
> > we had
> > >
> > > > > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both
> for
> > >
> > > > > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so
> if
> > we do
> > >
> > > > > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear
> > guidelines on
> > >
> > > > > how to structure and test the code, and better yet
> > machine-enforce rules.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui
> > on slack
> > >
> > > > > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and
> the
> > approach
> > >
> > > > > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite
> > when it comes
> > >
> > > > > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut
> > maybe that
> > >
> > > > > isn't a requirement here..
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > -ash
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Verdan Mahmood <ve...@gmail.com>.
Good to know that community is still leaning towards ReactJS.
I'm also in favor of moving Airflow frontend to ReactJS, and initiated
this discussion last year.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-2598
+1, frontend definitely needs some love from community :)
Best,
*Verdan Mahmood*
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:15 PM Alex Guziel <al...@airbnb.com.invalid>
wrote:
> The issue was before they re-licensed it. Now I believe the issue is put to
> bed as MIT is Apache compatible.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
> > this issue?
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
> > <Co...@morningstar.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > React is currently licensed under MIT.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
> > >
> > > On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> > >
> > > Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
> > >
> > > project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is license for Angular:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
> > >
> > > <dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ).
> > Hopefully
> > >
> > > > will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well.
> > Another thing
> > >
> > > > to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the
> > UI. E.g.
> > >
> > > > being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g.
> > visualize data
> > >
> > > > in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a
> > front-end guy
> > >
> > > > either, but React seems like a fine choice.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> ash@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to
> > work on to
> > >
> > > > > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could
> > improve Airflow
> > >
> > > > > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and
> > less
> > >
> > > > > grown-over-time :)
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in
> > the UI
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you
> can
> > take via
> > >
> > > > > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the
> > Task
> > >
> > > > > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on
> any
> > of the TI
> > >
> > > > > pages.
> > >
> > > > > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially
> > noticeable
> > >
> > > > > now that we've redesigned the project website.
> > >
> > > > > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of
> > power in
> > >
> > > > > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented
> > that could be
> > >
> > > > > improved.
> > >
> > > > > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk
> of
> > work,
> > >
> > > > > especially the backend component for this and is a whole
> separate
> > >
> > > > > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking
> > about using
> > >
> > > > > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we
> could
> > do this:
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static
> > pages in
> > >
> > > > > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> > >
> > > > > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the
> > page, but
> > >
> > > > > keep parts of it server-rendered.
> > >
> > > > > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just
> > speaks to an
> > >
> > > > > API server.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual
> webserver"
> > we had
> > >
> > > > > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both
> for
> > >
> > > > > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so
> if
> > we do
> > >
> > > > > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear
> > guidelines on
> > >
> > > > > how to structure and test the code, and better yet
> > machine-enforce rules.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui
> > on slack
> > >
> > > > > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and
> the
> > approach
> > >
> > > > > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite
> > when it comes
> > >
> > > > > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut
> > maybe that
> > >
> > > > > isn't a requirement here..
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > -ash
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Alex Guziel <al...@airbnb.com.INVALID>.
The issue was before they re-licensed it. Now I believe the issue is put to
bed as MIT is Apache compatible.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>
wrote:
> But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
> this issue?
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
> <Co...@morningstar.com> wrote:
> >
> > React is currently licensed under MIT.
> >
> > https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
> >
> >
> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
> >
> > On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> >
> > Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
> >
> > project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is license for Angular:
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
> >
> > <dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ).
> Hopefully
> >
> > > will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well.
> Another thing
> >
> > > to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the
> UI. E.g.
> >
> > > being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g.
> visualize data
> >
> > > in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a
> front-end guy
> >
> > > either, but React seems like a fine choice.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to
> work on to
> >
> > > > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could
> improve Airflow
> >
> > > > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and
> less
> >
> > > > grown-over-time :)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in
> the UI
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can
> take via
> >
> > > > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the
> Task
> >
> > > > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any
> of the TI
> >
> > > > pages.
> >
> > > > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially
> noticeable
> >
> > > > now that we've redesigned the project website.
> >
> > > > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of
> power in
> >
> > > > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented
> that could be
> >
> > > > improved.
> >
> > > > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of
> work,
> >
> > > > especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate
> >
> > > > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking
> about using
> >
> > > > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could
> do this:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static
> pages in
> >
> > > > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> >
> > > > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the
> page, but
> >
> > > > keep parts of it server-rendered.
> >
> > > > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just
> speaks to an
> >
> > > > API server.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver"
> we had
> >
> > > > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both for
> >
> > > > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if
> we do
> >
> > > > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear
> guidelines on
> >
> > > > how to structure and test the code, and better yet
> machine-enforce rules.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui
> on slack
> >
> > > > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the
> approach
> >
> > > > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite
> when it comes
> >
> > > > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut
> maybe that
> >
> > > > isn't a requirement here..
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Thoughts?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > -ash
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>.
But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
this issue?
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
<Co...@morningstar.com> wrote:
>
> React is currently licensed under MIT.
>
> https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
>
> On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com> wrote:
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
>
> project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
>
>
>
> Here is license for Angular:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
>
> <dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ). Hopefully
>
> > will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well. Another thing
>
> > to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the UI. E.g.
>
> > being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g. visualize data
>
> > in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a front-end guy
>
> > either, but React seems like a fine choice.
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Hi everyone,
>
> > >
>
> > > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to work on to
>
> > > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could improve Airflow
>
> > > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and less
>
> > > grown-over-time :)
>
> > >
>
> > > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in the UI
>
> > >
>
> > > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can take via
>
> > > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the Task
>
> > > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any of the TI
>
> > > pages.
>
> > > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially noticeable
>
> > > now that we've redesigned the project website.
>
> > > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of power in
>
> > > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented that could be
>
> > > improved.
>
> > > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of work,
>
> > > especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate
>
> > > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
>
> > >
>
> > > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking about using
>
> > > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could do this:
>
> > >
>
> > > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static pages in
>
> > > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
>
> > > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the page, but
>
> > > keep parts of it server-rendered.
>
> > > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just speaks to an
>
> > > API server.
>
> > >
>
> > > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver" we had
>
> > > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both for
>
> > > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
>
> > >
>
> > > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if we do
>
> > > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear guidelines on
>
> > > how to structure and test the code, and better yet machine-enforce rules.
>
> > >
>
> > > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui on slack
>
> > > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the approach
>
> > > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes
>
> > > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut maybe that
>
> > > isn't a requirement here..
>
> > >
>
> > > Thoughts?
>
> > >
>
> > > -ash
>
>
>
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Colin Ingarfield <Co...@morningstar.com>.
React is currently licensed under MIT.
https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <ka...@polidea.com> wrote:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
Here is license for Angular:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
<dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ). Hopefully
> will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well. Another thing
> to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the UI. E.g.
> being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g. visualize data
> in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a front-end guy
> either, but React seems like a fine choice.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to work on to
> > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could improve Airflow
> > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and less
> > grown-over-time :)
> >
> > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in the UI
> >
> > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can take via
> > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the Task
> > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any of the TI
> > pages.
> > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially noticeable
> > now that we've redesigned the project website.
> > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of power in
> > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented that could be
> > improved.
> > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of work,
> > especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate
> > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
> >
> > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking about using
> > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could do this:
> >
> > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static pages in
> > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the page, but
> > keep parts of it server-rendered.
> > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just speaks to an
> > API server.
> >
> > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver" we had
> > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both for
> > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
> >
> > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if we do
> > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear guidelines on
> > how to structure and test the code, and better yet machine-enforce rules.
> >
> > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui on slack
> > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the approach
> > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes
> > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut maybe that
> > isn't a requirement here..
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -ash
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>.
Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
https://www.itprotoday.com/devops-and-software-development/apache-foundation-and-facebook-standoff-over-reactjs-license
Here is license for Angular:
https://angular.io/license
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
<dd...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ). Hopefully
> will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well. Another thing
> to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the UI. E.g.
> being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g. visualize data
> in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a front-end guy
> either, but React seems like a fine choice.
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to work on to
> > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could improve Airflow
> > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and less
> > grown-over-time :)
> >
> > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in the UI
> >
> > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can take via
> > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the Task
> > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any of the TI
> > pages.
> > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially noticeable
> > now that we've redesigned the project website.
> > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of power in
> > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented that could be
> > improved.
> > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of work,
> > especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate
> > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
> >
> > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking about using
> > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could do this:
> >
> > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static pages in
> > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the page, but
> > keep parts of it server-rendered.
> > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just speaks to an
> > API server.
> >
> > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver" we had
> > with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both for
> > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
> >
> > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if we do
> > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear guidelines on
> > how to structure and test the code, and better yet machine-enforce rules.
> >
> > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui on slack
> > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the approach
> > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes
> > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut maybe that
> > isn't a requirement here..
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -ash
Re: Improving the Airflow UI
Posted by Dan Davydov <dd...@twitter.com.INVALID>.
+1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ). Hopefully
will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well. Another thing
to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the UI. E.g.
being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g. visualize data
in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a front-end guy
either, but React seems like a fine choice.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to work on to
> improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could improve Airflow
> would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and less
> grown-over-time :)
>
> A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in the UI
>
> - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can take via
> the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the Task
> Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any of the TI
> pages.
> - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially noticeable
> now that we've redesigned the project website.
> - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of power in
> there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented that could be
> improved.
> - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of work,
> especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate
> discussion, but we want to work on this.)
>
> We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking about using
> React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could do this:
>
> - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static pages in
> place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
> - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the page, but
> keep parts of it server-rendered.
> - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just speaks to an
> API server.
>
> The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver" we had
> with the RBAC addition which caused all sorts of pain, both for
> development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
>
> The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if we do
> decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear guidelines on
> how to structure and test the code, and better yet machine-enforce rules.
>
> Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui on slack
> and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the approach
> we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes
> to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut maybe that
> isn't a requirement here..
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -ash