Np. Can you please try the patch and +1 it? I would like to get it into 1.8.

Thx
Bolke.
> On 14 Jan 2017, at 19:04, Sumit Maheshwari <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks a lot Bolke for looking into this issue and raising PR in such a short 
> time.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> PR is out. Should fix your issue and fix a bug that was introduced with the 
> catchup feature.
> 
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/1994 
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/1994> 
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/1994 
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/1994>>
> 
> Bolke
> 
> > On 14 Jan 2017, at 14:22, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] 
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > You will need to align your start_date with the cron interval. In this case 
> > your start date should include 30 minutes. This is expected behaviour in 
> > 1.7.0. and 1.7.1. In master we are auto aligning the start_date with the 
> > interval in the scheduler. However, the dependency checker doesn’t do this 
> > so there it is an issue. I have create AIRFLOW-759 to track this issue.
> >
> > Bolke.
> >
> >
> >> On 14 Jan 2017, at 12:43, Sumit Maheshwari <[email protected] 
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Found that on our current prod version (1.7.0) and master as well,
> >> scheduler doesn't fire TIs if *scheduler_interval* is a cron expression and
> >> *depends_on_past* is True.
> >>
> >> The very simple DAG I used for testing can be found here:
> >> http://pastebin.com/wPnFjRwD <http://pastebin.com/wPnFjRwD>
> >>
> >> However it creates new DAG runs as per the scheduler, see this:
> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9EjxDCEDhERLWNRT196OWgtcnM/view?usp=sharing
> >>  
> >> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9EjxDCEDhERLWNRT196OWgtcnM/view?usp=sharing>
> >>
> >> Scheduler logs for the DAG can be seen here: http://pastebin.com/z5aRxh76 
> >> <http://pastebin.com/z5aRxh76>
> >>
> >> Please let me know if this is a know issue, or there are any workaround.
> >> What we do for workaround is to set *depends_on_past* to *False* at first
> >> then set it to *True* later.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sumit
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to