Thanks for starting the discussion Henry, I would be for option B as well, which seems to have more voices. (Also we can alway offer extensibility later if that's proven to be requested).
To make this move forward I believe you can start a lazy consensus for Option B and see what happens. Cheers, On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:54 PM Niko Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > > > >
