Already valid archives for yesterday might get invalidated when using another timezone than UTC

[sgiehl]

Description:

Archiving automatically invalidates archives for today and yesterday if needed.

The checks for this including comparing the archived period for including today, as well as checking if the ts_archived for yesterdays archived was done after yesterday.

It seems that those checks are not performed using the correct timezones.
While the archiving period is provided in the sites timezone, ts_archived is always stored as UTC. Therefore checks with those dates need to use the same timezone.

There actually had been tests for the method, which were all using UTC. Running the tests with other timezones actually caused failures. With the adjustments I did in the PR the tests are now passing for all timezones.

Review

• Functional review done
• Potential edge cases thought about (behavior of the code with strange input, with strange internal state or possible interactions with other Matomo subsystems)
• Usability review done (is anything maybe unclear or think about anything that would cause people to reach out to support)
• Security review done
• Wording review done
• Code review done
• Tests were added if useful/possible
• Reviewed for breaking changes
• Developer changelog updated if needed
• Documentation added if needed
• Existing documentation updated if needed

[michalkleiner]

I've suggested a change from 'day switch' to 'midnight' as I think that is what was meant by it, when one day rolls over to a new day (and the date changes, time goes from 23:59:59 to 0:00:00). I asked ChatGPT and midnight was the best suggestion.

[michalkleiner]

With some of the tests where we now have a comment that the test may not be correct, what do we want to do about those? Should we remove the comments and create a new issue instead to look into those?

[sgiehl]

With some of the tests where we now have a comment that the test may not be correct, what do we want to do about those? Should we remove the comments and create a new issue instead to look into those?

There is #22331 to change that directly.