-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 660
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[BUG] Flytescheduler cron expression validation process #4953
Comments
Thank you for opening your first issue here! 🛠 |
🤖 Hey @BroderPeters, back again to keep us on our toes, huh? 😄 Always a pleasure seeing your name pop up here! The error you're encountering is likely due to the fact that the cron expression The cron implementation used by Flyte is based on the standard cron as described by Wikipedia and also supports nonstandard predefined scheduling definitions as described by Amazon CloudWatch, except To resolve this issue, you have two options:
Please note that any changes to the cron parser would need to be thoroughly tested to ensure they don't introduce any new issues. You can find more information about the cron parser used by Flyte in the schedule.proto file. Sources
|
After some triaging I found out:
My recommendation:
Reasoning
|
Interested please assign |
#take |
Close with #5951 |
Describe the bug
Cron expressions like
0 6 * * MON#1
are currently able to being registered, display and executed, but flytescheduler produces the following error logs:Which according to the flyte docs should also be the expected behavior, as the
#
symbol is not listed here. Generally,#
is used for the nth occurrence of a day of a week in a month.From a discussion in the community slack
Expected behavior
Either cron expression that don't fit the allowed symbols from the docs are properly validated while registering the launch plan or expressions with symbols like
#
are also supported in the flytescheduler validation.Additional context to reproduce
Used Launchplan:
Screenshots
Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: