OSDir


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

Re: 1.10.1 Release?


Hi Airflow Devs:

Is this timezone issue in Airflow version 1.10.0 or only in 1.10.1?

Thanks.

Regards,
David

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:11 AM Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> we specifically remove timezone info to determine the next schedule. Ie.
> cron sets exact date times so tz info should not make sense. I’m going to
> have a look now.
>
>
> > On 30 Oct 2018, at 19:01, Ash Berlin-Taylor <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
> >
> >    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> 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> 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> 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 <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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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 <
> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>