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 <a...@apache.org> 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 > > 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 <bdbr...@gmail.com> 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 <a...@apache.org> 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 <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, kaczors on gitter has produced a minmal reproduction case: >>>> 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 <bdbr...@gmail.com> 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 <a...@apache.org> 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 <bdbr...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>>>>> <airflowu...@protonmail.com.INVALID> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was really hoping that >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> <bdbr...@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>> >>>> >>> >
