git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 1.10.1 Release?


Patch available at:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/4117

please test.

B.

> On 30 Oct 2018, at 21:14, Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> We should just pass it the UTC date (we should never use local time except at the user interface). I’m testing a patch right now.
> 
> B.
> 
>> On 30 Oct 2018, at 21:13, Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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 <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx>> 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 <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx>> 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 <ash@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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>
>> 
>>   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 <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx>> 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 <ash@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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 <ash@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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>
>> 
>> 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 <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx>> 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 <ash@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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 <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx>> 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 <airflowuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.INVALID <mailto:airflowuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.INVALID>> wrote:
>> 
>> I was really hoping that 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 <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx>> 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.
>