Move is_active user property to FAB auth manager
#42042
Conversation
vincbeck
requested review from
ryanahamilton,
ashb,
bbovenzi and
pierrejeambrun
as code owners
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:providers
area:webserver
|
I guess this means that Airlfow 3 will not work with earlier version of the FAB provider? Which I think is fine (I think it's quite a reasonable assumption that only "latest" version of FAB provider will work with Airflow 3), but it means that we have to bump version of the provider in the same PR and add fab_provider>= limit in preinstalled providers. |
That's true, in that case an inactive user will be able to log in in Airflow 3 with earlier version of FAB. I am not sure if this inactive user feature is widely used but I guess to be on the safe side we can do what you propose |
Done, please take a look to double check |
vincbeck
force-pushed
the
vincbeck/is_active
branch
from
14f2cf2 to
ff4ac28
Compare
Actually, does not it makes sense to do that before releasing Airflow 3? Several releases of FAB provider will happen before Airflow 3 is released, thus we might want to do it just before releasing Airflow 3 and set the latest FAB provider version? |
|
Converting the PR to draft to avoid accidental merging |
WDYT @potiuk ? |
Clean up.
is_activeis a property from FAB auth manager. We should not take care of it in Airflow but in FAB auth manager.^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.