+1 – but I will add that some systems use the term "order date".
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 17:26, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 10:35 Tzu-ping Chung <t...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I want to give a heads-up on a minor modification I just made to AIP-39. >> >> AIP-39 originally proposed renaming execution_date to schedule_date since >> the old name was confusing (it’s not when the DAG run is actually executed). >> However, while implementing the AIP and drafting documentation to it, I >> realised schedule_date is also quite confusing—the date is also not when the >> DAG run is scheduled to run. >> >> I went through the current documentation to get an idea how it currently >> explains execution_date, and found multiple instances the adjective >> “logical” is used: >> >> Concepts → DAG: “[Each DAG run] has a defined execution_date, which >> identifies the logical date and time it is running for - not the actual time >> when it was started.” >> Tutorial: “The date specified in this context is called execution_date. This >> is the logical date, which simulates the scheduler running your task or dag >> at a specific date and time […].“ >> The GCS operator: “The time span is defined by the DAG instance logical >> execution timestamp (execution_date, start of time span) and the timestamp >> when the next DAG instance execution is scheduled (end of time span).” >> >> So, after talking to Ash, I have renamed the field to logical_date. This >> would make the name more consistent to the term used to describe it, and >> hopefully the concept easier to understand. >> >> TP >>
