falcon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCarthy <michael.mccar...@inmobi.com>
Subject Relativity of validity timestamps for process & feeds
Date Mon, 06 Jul 2015 04:58:09 GMT
I'm a fairly new user to Falcon - any help clarifying the following
observations would be most welcome.

Specifically, it appears that the instance selected for a feed while using
"yesterday(0,0)" in a process spec is dependent on the relative validity
timestamps of the feed and process.

For instance, I had initially given an output feed a validity timestamp
with the hour: 08:00 to align with the daily process generating them; which
also has a validity timestamp hour of 08:00. The process uses
"yesterday(0,0)" as the output feed instance.

What I noticed during experimentation is that Falcon was using an output
timestamp that was one day before the one that I wanted. Specifically,
Falcon was using feeds for 2015-07-01 instead of the intended 2015-07-02.
When I changed the output feed validity timestamps to 00:00, the correct
day was used.

So it appears that one needs to be careful with the hours given for feeds
that have a daily resolution.  If the process that uses them inadvertently
specifies an hour before or after the feed time, the incorrect day may be
selected for the job.

Is this behaviour expected? Am I correct in assuming that it is good
practice to set validity timestamp hours for daily feeds to 00:00? Or that
processes should specify daily feed instances as 23:00 when using ELs such
as "yesterday" or "today"?

The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others 
authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance 
on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify 
us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your 
system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission 
of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its 

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message