+1. It could also be used to improve the multi-team approach. Not having this feature in the UI, was one of the missing pieces for being able to have multi-team more feature-full (think a user that belongs to two teams).
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:02 AM Aritra Basu <aritrabasu1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I love this idea, I think it would really help with organising dags and > categorising them. > > Thanks and Regards, > Aritra Basu > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I like this idea too. > > > > The ability to extend filtering at this level would be fantastic. IIUC, > the > > filtering is at a "UI" only level > > and is transient too. Moving this logic to the backend using a new API > (or > > existing ones) and grouping > > the dags would be a nice feature to have, making Airflow UI much more > > intuitive. > > > > I am not so sure what you mean by "domain" though.. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:03 PM Constance Martineau > > <consta...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > I love it and 100% agree. Thinking "Dag Groups", where you can group > dags > > > (static & dynamic) into a subfolder. Tags are great for filtering, but > > they > > > aren't a replacement for dirs especially at a large scale. We have some > > > deployments with 20k dags and as designed today, it's not navigable at > > that > > > scale. This could help > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:04 AM Blain David <david.bl...@infrabel.be> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Beside the new interface and getting rid off FAB in Airflow 3.0, a > cool > > > > and handy feature would be to be able to group multiple DAG's so you > > > could > > > > order them by like domain or whatever grouping you want to achieve. > > > > Okay, you can achieve the same with filtering, and maybe the we could > > use > > > > that feature to achieve the grouping but still it would make the UI > > more > > > > convenient to use, especially if you have to manage multiple dynamic > > > DAG's > > > > which are related to the same domain. It would be nice I you could > like > > > > create a group which always apply the filtering in a stateful manner. > > Or > > > > we could opt to really implement a dedicated grouping mechanism so > that > > > you > > > > could for example specify in your DAG to which group it belongs. > What > > do > > > > you guys think? I would be willing to help and contribute of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
