[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-3542?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16725231#comment-16725231 ]
Tao Feng commented on AIRFLOW-3542: ----------------------------------- lgtm. cc [~milton0825] > next_ds semantics broken for manually triggered runs > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: AIRFLOW-3542 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-3542 > Project: Apache Airflow > Issue Type: Bug > Components: scheduler > Affects Versions: 1.10.2 > Reporter: Dan Davydov > Assignee: Dan Davydov > Priority: Major > > {color:#222222}next_ds{color}{color:#222222} is useful when you need > cron-style scheduling, e.g. a task that runs for date "X" uses that date for > its logic, e.g. send an email to users saying the run that was supposed to > run for date "X" has completed. The problem is it doesn't behave as expected > when it comes to manually triggered runs as illustrated by the diagrams > below.{color} > > Using execution_date in a task > *Scheduled Run (works as expected)* > execution_date1 start_date1 > \/ \/ > *|-----------------------------|* > /\ /\ > \_________________/ > scheduling_interval > > *Manual Run* *(works as expected)* > triggered_date + execution_date + start_date > \/ > *|* > > Using next_ds in a Task > *Scheduled Run (works as expected)* > next_ds1 + start_date1 next_ds2 + start_date2 > \/ \/ > *|------------------------------------------------|* > /\ /\ > \____________________________/ > scheduling_interval > > *Manual Run* *(next_ds1 is expected to match triggered_date as in the case > for the manually triggered run that uses the regular execution_date above)* > triggered_date next_ds1 + start_date > \/ \/ > *|-------------------------------------------------|* > /\ /\ > \____________________________/ > 0 to scheduling_interval (depending on when the next execution > date is) > Proposal > Have next_ds always set to execution_date for manually triggered runs instead > of the next schedule-interval aligned execution date. > > This _might_ break backwards compatibility for some users but it can be > argued that the current functionality is a bug. If it's really desired we can > create new aliases that behave logically although I am against this. > > prev_ds should probably also be made consistent with this logic. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)