Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Argo API Server #1331

Closed
jessesuen opened this issue Apr 20, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Argo API Server #1331

jessesuen opened this issue Apr 20, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
type/feature Feature request
Milestone

Comments

@jessesuen
Copy link
Member

Currently Argo UI is powered by a lightweight API server written in node, is readonly, and can only do visualization of workflows.

We plan to have a more formalize API server, rewritten in go, which can handle things like submit, resubmits, retries, deletes, suspend, resume, etc...

The API server should also be able to run locally. e.g.:

argo server

Which would then make the api server available via https://localhost:8080, to manage workflows using the current kubeconfig context.

The API server would also work in tandem with the controller's persistence configuration, allowing workflows to be listed from a database (instead of kubernetes API).

@jessesuen jessesuen added the type/feature Feature request label Apr 20, 2019
@jessesuen jessesuen self-assigned this Apr 20, 2019
@jessesuen jessesuen added this to the v2.5 milestone Apr 20, 2019
@jessesuen
Copy link
Member Author

Diagram explaining the proposed authentication mechanism:

Argo API Server

The idea is that we will be trying very hard not to have our own RBAC, and rely on existing kubernetes RBAC. For this to work, the Argo API server would make K8s API requests using forwarded credentials supplied by the client, basically acting as a proxy to the requests.

@sarabala1979 sarabala1979 self-assigned this Aug 7, 2019
@alexec alexec added the L label Sep 12, 2019
@hnykda
Copy link

hnykda commented Oct 18, 2019

Thanks for the awesome work btw.!

Just wanted to mention that there is a huge demand for this feature, so we don't have to do this by ourselves by getting it out of the "raw" DB by ourself (with 2.4.0 out ❤️ ).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/feature Feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants