Fair :) Timezones are _hard_ Giving it a look now.
-ash > On 30 Oct 2018, at 20:50, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: > > The reason for not passing a TZ aware object is, is that many libraries make > mistakes (pytz, arrow etc) when doing transitions hence to use of pendulum > which seem most complete. I don’t know what croniter is relying on and I > don’t want to find out ;-). > > B. > >> On 30 Oct 2018, at 21:13, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I think if we give croniter a tz-aware DT in the local tz it will deal with >> DST (i.e. will give 2:55 CEST followed by 2:00 CET) and then we convert it >> to UTC for return - but right now we are giving it a TZ-unaware local time. >> >> I think. >> >> Ash >> >> On 30 October 2018 19:40:27 GMT, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think we should use the UTC date for cron instead of the naive local date >> time. I will check of croniter implements this so we can rely on that. >> >> B. >> >> On 28 Oct 2018, at 02:09, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I wonder how to treat this: >> >> This is what I think happens (need to verify more, but I am pretty sure) the >> specified DAG should run every 5 minutes. At DST change (3AM -> 2AM) we >> basically hit a schedule that we have already seen. 2AM -> 3AM has already >> happened. Obviously the intention is to run every 5 minutes. But what do we >> do with the execution_date? Is this still idempotent? Should we indeed >> reschedule? >> >> B. >> >> On 30 Oct 2018, at 19:01, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've done a bit more digging - the issue is of our tz-aware handling inside >> following_schedule (and previous schedule) - causing it to loop. >> >> This section of the croniter docs seems relevant >> https://github.com/kiorky/croniter#about-dst >> <https://github.com/kiorky/croniter#about-dst><https://github.com/kiorky/croniter#about-dst >> <https://github.com/kiorky/croniter#about-dst>> >> >> Be sure to init your croniter instance with a TZ aware datetime for this to >> work !: >> local_date = tz.localize(datetime(2017, 3, 26)) >> val = croniter('0 0 * * *', local_date).get_next(datetime) >> >> I think the problem is that we are _not_ passing a TZ aware dag in and we >> should be. >> >> On 30 Oct 2018, at 17:35, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Oh that’s a great environment to start digging. Thanks. I’ll have a look. >> >> B. >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >> >> Op 30 okt. 2018 om 18:25 heeft Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: >> >> This line in airflow.jobs (line 874 in my checkout) is causing the loop: >> >> last_run = dag.get_last_dagrun(session=session) >> if last_run and next_run_date: >> while next_run_date <= last_run.execution_date: >> next_run_date = dag.following_schedule(next_run_date) >> >> >> >> On 30 Oct 2018, at 17:20, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi, kaczors on gitter has produced a minmal reproduction case: >> https://github.com/kaczors/airflow_1_10_tz_bug >> <https://github.com/kaczors/airflow_1_10_tz_bug> >> <https://github.com/kaczors/airflow_1_10_tz_bug >> <https://github.com/kaczors/airflow_1_10_tz_bug>> >> >> Rough repro steps: In a VM, with time syncing disabled, and configured with >> system timezone of Europe/Zurich (or any other CEST one) run >> >> - `date 10280250.00` >> - initdb, start scheduler, webserver, enable dag etc. >> - `date 10280259.00` >> - wait 5-10 mins for scheduler to catch up >> - After the on-the-hour task run the scheduler will spin up another process >> to parse the dag... and it never returns. >> >> I've only just managed to reproduce it, so haven't dug in to why yet. A >> quick hacky debug print shows something is stuck in an infinite loop. >> >> -ash >> >> On 29 Oct 2018, at 17:59, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Can this be confirmed? Then I can have a look at it. Preferably with dag >> definition code. >> >> On the licensing requirements: >> >> 1. Indeed licensing header for markdown documents. It was suggested to use >> html comments. I’m not sure how that renders with others like PDF though. >> 2. The licensing notifications need to be tied to a specific version as >> licenses might change with versions. >> >> Cheers >> Bolke >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >> >> Op 29 okt. 2018 om 12:39 heeft Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: >> >> I was going to make a start on the release, but two people have reported >> that there might be an issue around non-UTC dags and the scheduler changing >> over from Summer time. >> >> 08:45 Emmanuel> Hi there, we are currently experiencing a very strange issue >> : we have hourly DAGs with a start_date in a local timezone (not UTC) and >> since (Sunday) the last winter time change they don’t run anymore. Any idea ? >> 09:41 <Emmanuel> it impacted all our DAG that had a run at 3am >> (Europe/Paris), the exact time of winter time change :( >> >> I am going to take a look at this today and see if I can get to the bottom >> of it. >> >> Bolke: are there any outstanding tasks/issues that you know of that might >> slow down the vote for a 1.10.1? (i.e. did we sort of out all the licensing >> issues that were asked of us? I thought I read something about license >> declarations in markdown files?) >> >> -ash >> >> On 28 Oct 2018, at 14:46, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I agree with that, but I would favor time based releases instead. We are >> again at the point that a release takes so much time that the gap is getting >> really big again. @ash why not start releasing now and move the remainder to >> 1.10.2? I dont think there are real blockers (although we might find them). >> >> >> On 28 Oct 2018, at 15:35, airflowuser <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I was really hoping that >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/4069 >> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/4069><https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/4069 >> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/4069>> will be merged >> into 1.10.1 >> Deleting dags was a highly requested feature for 1.10 - this can fix the >> problem with it. >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, October 26, 2018 6:12 PM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hey Ash, >> >> I was wondering if you are picking up the 1.10.1 release? Master is speeding >> ahead and you were tracking fixes for 1.10.1 right? >> >> B. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
