Yeah, that's the other thing that has been talked about from time-to-time, which is a mode to change from "run at end of period, I need all the data available for this period" (the current) to "run at _this_ time on the schedule_interval, don't wait for the period to end".
(No such flag exists right now, before you go looking.) > On 9 Apr 2019, at 15:31, Shaw, Damian P. <damian.sha...@credit-suisse.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm new to this Airflow Dev mailing list so I wasn't expecting to reply to > anything but I feel I am the target audience for this question. I am quite > new to airflow and have been setting up an airflow environment for my > business this last month. > > I find the current "execution_date" a small technical burden and a large > cognitive burden. Our workflow is based on DAGs running at a specified time > in a specified timezone using the same date as the current calendar date. > > I have worked around this by creating my own macro and context variables, > with the logic looking like this: > airflow_execution_date = context['execution_date'] > dag_timezone = context['dag'].timezone > local_execution_date = dag_timezone.convert(airflow_execution_date) > local_cal_date = local_execution_date + datetime.timedelta(days=1) > > As you can see this isn't a lot of technical effort, but having a date that > 1) is in the timezone the business users are working in, and 2) Is the same > calendar date the business users are working in it significantly reduces the > cognitive effort required to set-up tasks. Of course this doesn't help with > cron format scheduling which I just let the business give me the requirements > for and I set it up myself as the date logic there is still confusing as it > doesn't work like real cron scheduling which everyone is familiar with. > > Maybe "period_start" and "period_end" might help people on Day 0 of > understanding Airflow get that the dates you are dealing with are not what > you expect, but Day 1+ there's still a lot of cognitive overhead if you don't > have the exact same model as AirBnb for running DAGs and tasks. > > My 2 cents anyway, > Damian Shaw > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ash Berlin-Taylor [mailto:a...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 10:08 AM > To: dev@airflow.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] period_start/period_end instead of > execution_date/next_execution_date > > (trying to break this out in to another thread) > > The ML doesn't allow images, but I can guess that it is the deps section of > a task instance details screen? > > I'm not saying it's not clear once you know to look there, but I'm trying > remove/reduce the confusion in the first place. And I think we as committers > aren't best placed to know what makes sense as we have internalised how > Airflow works :) > > So I guess this is a question to the newest people on the list: Would > `period_start` and `period_end` be more or less confusing for you when you > were first getting started with Airflow? > > -ash > >> On 9 Apr 2019, at 14:47, Driesprong, Fokko <fo...@driesprong.frl> wrote: >> >> Ash, >> >> Personally, I think this is quite clear, there is a list of reasons why the >> job isn't being scheduled: >> >> >> Coming back to the question of Bas, I believe that yesterday_ds does not >> make sense since we cannot assume that the schedule is daily. I don't see >> any usage of this variable. Personally, I do use next_execution_date quite >> extensively. When you have a job that runs daily, but you want to change >> this to an hourly job. In such a case you don't want to change {{ >> (execution_date + macros.timedelta(days=1)) }} to {{ (execution_date + >> macros.timedelta(hours=1)) }} everywhere. >> >> I'm just not sure if the aggressive deprecation of is really worth it. I >> don't see too much harm in letting them stay. >> >> Cheers, Fokko >> >> Op di 9 apr. 2019 om 12:17 schreef Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org >> <mailto:a...@apache.org>>: >> To (slightly) hijack this thread: >> >> On the subject of execuction_date: as I'm sure we're all aware the concept >> of execution_date is confusing to new-commers to Airflow (there are many >> questions about "why hasn't my DAG run yet"? "Why is my dag a day behind?" >> etc.) and although we mention this in the docs it's a confusing concept. >> >> What to people think about adding two new parameters: `period_start` and >> `period_end` and making these the preferred terms in place of execution_date >> and next_execution_date? >> >> This hopefully avoids any ambitious terms like "execution" or "run" which is >> understandably easy to conflate with the time the task is being run (i.e. >> `now()`) >> >> If people think this naming is better and less confusing I would suggest we >> update all the docs and examples to use these terms (but still mention the >> old names somewhere, probably in the macros docs) >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -ash >> >> >>> On 8 Apr 2019, at 16:20, Arthur Wiedmer <arthur.wied...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:arthur.wied...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bas, >>> >>> 1) I am aware of a few places where those parameters are used in production >>> in a few hundred jobs. I highly recommend we don't deprecate them unless we >>> do it in a major version. >>> >>> 2) As James mentioned, inlets and outlets are a lineage annotation feature >>> which is still under development. Let's leave them in, but we can guard >>> them behind a feature flag if you prefer. >>> >>> 3) the yesterday*/tomorrow* params are convenience ones if you use a daily >>> ETL. I agree with you that they are simple to compute, but not everyone >>> using Apache Airflow is amazing with Python. Some users are only trying to >>> get a query scheduled and rely on a couple of niceties like these to get by. >>> >>> 4) latest_date, end_date (I feel like there used to be start_date, but >>> maybe it got lost) were a blend of things which were used by a backfill >>> framework used internally at Airbnb. Latest date was used if you needed to >>> join to a dimension for which you only wanted the latest version of the >>> attributes in you backfill. end_date was used for time ranges where several >>> days were processed together in a range to save on compute. I don't see an >>> issue with removing them. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Arthur >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:37 AM Bas Harenslak <basharens...@godatadriven.com >>> <mailto:basharens...@godatadriven.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Following Tao Feng’s question to discuss this PR< >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5010 >>>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/5010>> (AIRFLOW-4192< >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4192 >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4192>>), please discuss here >>>> if you agree/disagree/would change. >>>> >>>> ----------- >>>> >>>> The summary of the PR: >>>> >>>> I was confused by the task context values and suggest to clean up and >>>> clarify these variables. Some are derivations from other variables, some >>>> are undocumented and unused, some are wrong (name doesn’t match the value). >>>> Please discuss what you think of the removal of these variables: >>>> >>>> >>>> * Removed yesterday_ds, yesterday_ds_nodash, tomorrow_ds, >>>> tomorrow_ds_nodash. IMO the next_* and previous_* variables are useful >>>> since these require complex logic to compute the next execution date, >>>> however would leave computing the yesterday* and tomorrow* variables up to >>>> the user since they are simple one-liners and don't relate to the DAG >>>> interval. >>>> * Removed tables. This is a field in params, and is thus also >>>> accessible by the user ({{ params.tables }}). Also, it was undocumented. >>>> * Removed latest_date. It's the same as ds and was also undocumented. >>>> * Removed inlets and outlets. Also undocumented, and have the >>>> inlets/outlets ever worked/ever been used by anybody? >>>> * Removed end_date and END_DATE. Both have the same value, so it >>>> doesn't make sense to have both variables. Also, the value is ds which >>>> contains the start date of the interval, so the naming didn't make sense to >>>> me. However, if anybody argues in favour of adding "start_date" and >>>> "end_date" to provide the start and end datetime of task instance >>>> intervals, I'd be happy to add them. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Bas >>>> >> > > > > =============================================================================== > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html > =============================================================================== >
