Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.72%. Comparing base (76d897e) to head (0b9a4f5).
Report is 523 commits behind head on master.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #29798       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   60.48%   83.72%   +23.23%     
===========================================
  Files        1931      527     -1404     
  Lines       76236    38006    -38230     
  Branches     8568        0     -8568     
===========================================
- Hits        46114    31819    -14295     
+ Misses      28017     6187    -21830     
+ Partials     2105        0     -2105     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I haven't dug in the code, but will this cause a change in behavior (meaning the actual time at which certain alerts will trigger) in some environments for some alerts? If that's the case we should either prevent that with some flag and/or adding a comment in UPDATING.md to let administrator know what might be affected and how to tweak things to preserve the current timing/behavior.

Thanks @danielli-ziprecruiter for the PR! In addition to @mistercrunch's comments, can you add some tests to this PR?

Yes, this would cause a change in behavior, but the previous behavior didn't make sense since the alert / reporting run would not occur at the configured time and timezone and instead occur at time offset by the configured timezone's relation to UTC. I can still add a comment in UPDATING.md calling this out though.

he alert / reporting run would not occur at the configured time and timezone and instead occur at time offset by the configured timezone's

Makes sense, though wondering its possible that people might have set their alerts/reports while relying on this quirky behavior.

Can we clarify the scope of alerts that would be affected (say "only the ones that set a TZ")? Is this an edge case or does it affect most alerts out there? We have to think of the thousands of organizations running hundreds of thousands or alerts/reports every day...

If it's a small portion of alerts/reports, maybe a note in UPDATING.md is sufficiant.

If it's a a large portion of alerts/reports, we have different options

• a db migration that makes sure that effective run time of alerts are not affected, altering the existing alerts
• wait for the next major release to ship as a breaking change
• some sort of flag for each alert (new_scheduling_logic = True/False) where we apply the old/new logic conditionally

I think I've found where this issue was actually introduced. This commit changes datetime.now(tz=dt_timezone.utc) to datetime.utcnow(). datetime.utcnow() is not timezone aware, hence the issue described earlier. I've updated the PR accordingly. Would I still need to add additional tests or comments to UPDATING.md?

I think a message in https://github.com/apache/superset/blob/master/UPDATING.md seems important to let people know about any "change in behavior" for when they are upgrading. In theory whoever conducts upgrades should read through that file and ack the notices, notify their users, or take action if needed. Ideally the message is clear about the scope of the change of behavior (which types of alerts/reports will be affected, maybe it's only the alerts/reports that specify a TZ, idk) and what's the old/new behavior.

@michael-s-molina @rusackas did we not think a comment in UPDATING.md was helpful/necessary?

I'm sorry @mistercrunch, I think I missed your comment. I agree that a comment in UPDATING.md is necessary. @danielli-ziprecruiter could you open a follow-up please?

I just created a new hold:updating.md label we can use in the future that should prevent merging without having to do a "requires changes" review