FYI. I slowly progress - among other things - the 500 Error is fixed - now
what are left are a few wrong responses
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51681  . I also noticed a weird
behaviour with Postgres about some database size mismatch.
I am at the  Reproducible Build Summit next 2 days - not sure if I will
have time to push a fix or two - but if someone would like to take a look
(maybe at the postgres issue), it would be great.

It's actually very easy to test:
* checkout my PR
* uv tool install -e ./dev/breeze  ---force  (reinstall breeze from v2
branch)
* breeze ci-image build
* breeze start-airflow

This branch has both FAB and Airflow 2.11.1 modifications so they can be
changed and tested together

Pushed fixups are most welcome :).


On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:00 PM Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote:

> Happy to support testing as well as I was notified about a lot of alerts
> from MS Defender scanning of the current 2.11.0 Docker Image and this
> would relieve the pain! Would be great to get rid of the problems.
>
> On 17.10.25 14:20, Pierre Jeambrun wrote:
> > Same here, happy to review PRs and provide insights. That would be super
> > helpful!
> >
> > On Thu 16 Oct 2025 at 18:43, Vincent Beck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on this one. If someone is interested, that would be super helpful.
> >> Very happy to help and reviews PRs, you will not be alone :)
> >>
> >> On 2025/10/16 16:11:37 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> >>> While I am working on updating Connexion to 2.15.0 in Airflow 2 + FAB
> >> 1.5,
> >>> I have another thing: We still use Connexion in FAB 2 provider (for
> >> airflow
> >>> 3) to handle the (very few) API endpoints FAB.  Ideally we should get
> rid
> >>> of Connexion completely - this will make some of our dependencies
> "free"
> >> to
> >>> upgrade as well.
> >>>
> >>> We discussed it with Vincent and Pierre and I would love someone
> involved
> >>> in Fast API development who has some experience in this part could take
> >> it
> >>> on and help.
> >>>
> >>> That would be a really invaluable help. I created an issue for that
> >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/56730 - and we have a
> >> #fab-upgrade
> >>> slack channel to discuss details. If one of the community members could
> >>> help with that - please let us know and we will be happy to collaborate
> >> as
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> J,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 8:55 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good news. As a result of our request, Connection 2.15.0rc2 was
> >> released
> >>>> in PyPI this morning with Flask>3. I am running now tests with it
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51681 and we **finally** have
> >>>> non-conflicting dependencies in Airflow 2.11 with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It still fails - i.e. we will have to fix things with session handling
> >> (we
> >>>> knew we will have to do it because of flask-session upgrade) but this
> >> is
> >>>> something we are now unblocked with :).
> >>>>
> >>>>   Hopefully soon we will get rid of the Werkzeug drama.
> >>>>
> >>>> root@a20ed58d4f59:/opt/airflow# pip freeze | grep lask
> >>>> Flask==2.3.3
> >>>> Flask-AppBuilder==4.5.2
> >>>> Flask-Babel==2.0.0
> >>>> Flask-Bcrypt==1.0.1
> >>>> Flask-Caching==2.3.1
> >>>> Flask-JWT-Extended==4.7.1
> >>>> Flask-Limiter==3.11.0
> >>>> Flask-Login==0.6.3
> >>>> Flask-Session==0.8.0
> >>>> Flask-SQLAlchemy==2.5.1
> >>>> Flask-WTF==1.2.2
> >>>> root@a20ed58d4f59:/opt/airflow# pip freeze | grep erkzeug
> >>>> *Werkzeug==3.1.3*
> >>>> root@a20ed58d4f59:/opt/airflow#
> >>>>
> >>>> J.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 7:44 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Airflow community,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you. You are amazing. With all the upvotes and comments we had
> >> the
> >>>>> contributor of connexion working on bringing Flask 2.3.3+ back to the
> >>>>> upcoming Connexion release
> >>>>> https://github.com/spec-first/connexion/pull/2058/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Particularly Kamil - thanks for the thoughtful comments and the
> >>>>> diligent check on what Flask version we need. We are currently at 2.2
> >> in
> >>>>> Airflow 2.11 but I checked that if Connexion sets their limit to
> >>> =2.3.3,
> >>>>> we should be able update to that version in 2.11 (and it's good in
> >> general
> >>>>> as 2.3+ is now the only recommended branch still being "supported"
> for
> >>>>> Flask 2 for security issues it seems. So we get additional benefit
> >> there
> >>>>> that we will be less likely to hit similar issues until Airflow 2
> EOL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> J.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 8:07 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> Thank you Kamil - that's very thoughtful and nice to see your
> message
> >>>>>> back on the devlist :D
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 7:38 PM Kamil Breguła <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I proposed to split the new connexion release into two versions.
> >> First
> >>>>>>> release one release that supports the new Werkzereg release, and
> >> then
> >>>>>>> release a new Connexion release that supports Flask 3 only. This is
> >> not
> >>>>>>> ideal, because Airflow 2 will still be on an unsupported version of
> >>>>>>> Connexion, but we will have at least one release that has the new
> >>>>>>> Werkzeug
> >>>>>>> version and has a fix for the CVE bug. This might be easier to do,
> >> as I
> >>>>>>> understand that connexion might not want to support Flask 2 if
> >> there is
> >>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>> specific end date for when other dependencies will support Flask 3,
> >> but
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> may still turn out to be enough for us.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> śr., 18 cze 2025 o 08:54 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
> >> napisał(a):
> >>>>>>>> I WOULD LIKE TO TAP INTO POWER OF OUR COMMUNITY... PLEASE HELP.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We again had another issue with FAB where the root cause was our
> >> old
> >>>>>>>> Werkzeug version - that we cannot upgrade until now) - old
> >> Werkzeug
> >>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>> not support `scrypt` hashing algorithm and latest FAB version
> >>>>>>> defaulted
> >>>>>>>> password hashing to scrypt - we have a workaround but we will
> >> have to
> >>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>> a more complete fix with FAB provider. And I am sure Airflow 2
> >> users
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>> have more and more problems as the time passes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think there is a **real** chance with the Connexion team
> >> working on
> >>>>>>>> 2.15.0 - https://pypi.org/project/connexion/2.15.0rc1/  that we
> >> can
> >>>>>>>> finally
> >>>>>>>> get rid of it - in Both Airflow 2 and Airflow 3. But we have one
> >>>>>>> problem ->
> >>>>>>>> Connexion 2.15.0rc1 seems to require Flask 3 where we cannot
> >> upgrade
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> Flask 3 because of the FAB <3 limit. I started a discussion about
> >> it
> >>>>>>> here:
> >>
> https://github.com/spec-first/connexion/pull/1992#issuecomment-2976706491
> >>>>>>>> and explained that it would be great if Connexion 2.15.0 supported
> >>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>> flask 2.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And it would be great if more people could support it and explain
> >>>>>>> that this
> >>>>>>>> would be a major win for the Airflow community if they could relax
> >>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>> I do not think this is a big problem for them - the explanation we
> >>>>>>> had from
> >>>>>>>> them is "hey Flask 2 is really old" - but there is no "real"
> >> reason.
> >>>>>>>> On the other hand migrating FAB to Flask 3 would like be a very
> >>>>>>> complex and
> >>>>>>>> risky thing (and Daniel already struggles with just SQLalchemy
> >>>>>>> upgrade and
> >>>>>>>> FAB 5 so it would be too much to put the pressure on him).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Can you please help and upvote/comment on
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/spec-first/connexion/pull/1992#issuecomment-2976706491
> >>>>>>>> I would (and the whole community) really, really appreciate it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:16 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As you might know, Airflow 2 has a long-time issue with not
> >> being
> >>>>>>> able to
> >>>>>>>>> upgrade Werkzeug dependency to a non-vulnerable version and that
> >>>>>>> raises a
> >>>>>>>>> lot of alarms for users who run CVE checks on Airflow.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We've been waiting for a long time for that - but it looks like
> >>>>>>> there is
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> light in a tunnel. We have two options that we can attempt:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Connexion 2.15.0.rc1
> >>>>>>>>> 2) Releasing a package that will patch Werkzeug 2.2.3 with
> >>>>>>> backported CVE
> >>>>>>>>> fixes
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Recently Google team attempted to back-port and test fixes to
> >> older
> >>>>>>>>> version of Werkzeug and I helped to get through to the
> >> maintainers -
> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/discussions/3034 - however
> >>>>>>> they are
> >>>>>>>>> not really willing to make that into regular release - reasoning
> >>>>>>>> explained
> >>>>>>>>> in the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, after many months of discussions and at least 3
> >> attempts
> >>>>>>> to bump
> >>>>>>>>> dependencies for Connexion - we seem to have an RC candidate
> >>>>>>> (2.15.0rc1
> >>>>>>>>> https://pypi.org/project/connexion/2.15.0rc1/) that lifts the
> >>>>>>> limit for
> >>>>>>>>> Werkzeug (released 4 days ago).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There were some breaking changes in Werkzeug that made it so
> >> long
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> difficult but I think we should be able to release a 2.11.1
> >> version
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> Airflow with it
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I made  first attempt to migrate - here:
> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51681 and while I was
> >> able
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>> out non-conflicting dependencies and bump Werkzeug, there are
> >> some
> >>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>> to be fixed with session handling and there is still one
> >> outstanding
> >>>>>>>>> problem - FAB requires Flask < 3 and currently Connexion
> >> 2.0.15rc1
> >>>>>>>> requires
> >>>>>>>>> flask >= 3 - which FAB (even upcoming FAB 5) does not support.
> >> And
> >>>>>>> likely
> >>>>>>>>> migrating to Flask 3 is **not** an option for us anyway.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I started discussion here with those who worked on the Connexion
> >>>>>>> patch
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> Werkzeug to see if that is a "hard" limit..:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://github.com/spec-first/connexion/pull/1992#issuecomment-2969565640
> >>>>>>>>> Alternative option - patch package:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We also have a "last-resort" approach that we are looking at
> >> with
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> Google team. We might want to release a "werkzeug-patch" package
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>> apply the CVE patches to Werkzeug 2.2.3
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Option 1) is not clear yet if it is possible due to Flask 3 /
> >> Flask
> >>>>>>> 2  -
> >>>>>>>>> and it would only work for 2.11.1 - we need to make some fixes
> >> and
> >>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>> dependencies for Airflow to make it work.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Option 2) Is hacky (I am talking to Werkzeug maintainers what do
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>> think about it as we would likely need to have at least a
> >> comment
> >>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>> CVE advisory that this package fixes it as well) . But it has
> >> the
> >>>>>>> benefit
> >>>>>>>>> that it will **just work** by installing the patch on basically
> >> all
> >>>>>>> past
> >>>>>>>>> Airflow versions
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just wanted to let everyone know it happens and ask if you have
> >> any
> >>>>>>>>> opinions on those.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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]
>
>

Reply via email to