Archiving job prioritization and safety precautions #15991

Refs #15117

@diosmosis now getting an exception isPeriodInThisPeriod method not defined

Oh, huh, I forgot to implement that, but the tests were passing for me... interesting, will fix.

@tsteur pushed

Also not sure if I missed it or if this is covered by a lock. Should the very same archive already be in process (same site, period, date and segment (if given)) to then skip as well?

Covered by two things, first is that if the archive is DONE_IN_PROGRESS we shouldn't handle it. Second is if it is locked and not expired, we shouldn't handle it. We could also just do <= when checking period ID and that would also prevent it in a third check. I'll just add that for fun.

FYI, I'm planning on refactoring/testing all of CronArchive in #11974

@diosmosis don't have to add it unless it's easy. The DONE IN PROGRESS should be fine too

@tsteur single character change, so definitely easy

👍 feel free to change it and I have another look

@tsteur you can take another look

@diosmosis some tests are failing now. Otherwise looks good to merge