Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
Locked
Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
 
|
Hi,
Date readFrom: '4.2.13' readStream pattern: 'd.m.yy' Does not return 4.2.2013 but 4.2.0013 The comment is saying "A year given using only two decimals is considered to be >2000" So, the comment is not ok or this is a bug? Sabine |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
Hello Sabine
probably a bug. If you can write some tests and publish them on the bugtracker this will help. If you provide the fix (it will be faster to get it fixed) please run the tests to make sure that we do not introduce side effects. Stef > Hi, > > Date readFrom: '4.2.13' readStream pattern: 'd.m.yy' > > Does not return 4.2.2013 but 4.2.0013 > > The comment is saying > "A year given using only two decimals is considered to be >2000" > > So, the comment is not ok or this is a bug? > > Sabine > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
Hi,
I created a bug, hoping that I filled out every field correctly. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11222/Date-readFrom-pattern-year-2-decimals-not-20xx-but-00xx Sabine On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Stéphane Ducasse [via Smalltalk] <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello Sabine > probably a bug. > If you can write some tests and publish them on the bugtracker this will > help. > If you provide the fix (it will be faster to get it fixed) please run the > tests to make sure that we do not > introduce side effects. > > Stef > >> Hi, >> >> Date readFrom: '4.2.13' readStream pattern: 'd.m.yy' >> >> Does not return 4.2.2013 but 4.2.0013 >> >> The comment is saying >> "A year given using only two decimals is considered to be >2000" >> >> So, the comment is not ok or this is a bug? >> >> Sabine >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > > > ________________________________ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427p4700428.html > To unsubscribe from Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0, click here. > NAML |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
I also hate #yyyymmdd Date today yyyymmdd -> '2013-07-24' I would expect '20130724' Cheers, On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Sabine Knöfel <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
I agree
The comment of yyyymmdd is saying "Format the date in ISO 8601 standard like '2002-10-22' The result is of fixed size 10 characters long.." so I would say the selector is not choosen very careful. There is a discussion in Fogbuz about >>readFrom:pattern: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11222 Sabine On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck [via Smalltalk] <[hidden email]> wrote: > I also hate #yyyymmdd > > Date today yyyymmdd -> '2013-07-24' > > I would expect '20130724' > > Cheers, > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Sabine Knöfel <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I created a bug, hoping that I filled out every field correctly. >> >> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11222/Date-readFrom-pattern-year-2-decimals-not-20xx-but-00xx >> >> Sabine >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Stéphane Ducasse [via Smalltalk] >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > Hello Sabine >> > probably a bug. >> > If you can write some tests and publish them on the bugtracker this will >> > help. >> > If you provide the fix (it will be faster to get it fixed) please run >> > the >> > tests to make sure that we do not >> > introduce side effects. >> > >> > Stef >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Date readFrom: '4.2.13' readStream pattern: 'd.m.yy' >> >> >> >> Does not return 4.2.2013 but 4.2.0013 >> >> >> >> The comment is saying >> >> "A year given using only two decimals is considered to be >2000" >> >> >> >> So, the comment is not ok or this is a bug? >> >> >> >> Sabine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> >> http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427.html >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >> > below: >> > >> > http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427p4700428.html >> > To unsubscribe from Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0, click >> > here. >> > NAML >> >> ________________________________ >> View this message in context: Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? >> Pharo2.0 >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > ________________________________ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427p4700533.html > To unsubscribe from Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0, click here. > NAML |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
I remember that once camillo suggested to use the same approach as in dart where you can specify a strategy.
I agree |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
On 24 Jul 2013, at 18:20, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > I remember that once camillo suggested to use the same approach as in dart where you can specify a strategy. The ZTimestamp package contains such an example-based parser/formatter (load from the config browser or from http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~SvenVanCaekenberghe/Neo) that can do what you want and much more, like multi-language weeks/months, for formatting & parsing. ((ZTimestampFormat fromString: '3.2.01') createDate; parse: '4.2.13') = (Date newDay: 4 month: 2 year: 2013 ) It is based on how things are done in Go. Read the class docs & tests for more information. You could subclass ZTimestampFormat and override #parseYearTwoDigitsFrom: to fine-tune the behaviour of 2 digit year specifications. Sven >> I agree >> >> The comment of yyyymmdd is saying >> "Format the date in ISO 8601 standard like '2002-10-22' >> The result is of fixed size 10 characters long.." >> >> so I would say the selector is not choosen very careful. >> >> There is a discussion in Fogbuz about >>readFrom:pattern: >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11222 >> >> Sabine >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck [via Smalltalk] >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > I also hate #yyyymmdd >> > >> > Date today yyyymmdd -> '2013-07-24' >> > >> > I would expect '20130724' >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Sabine Knöfel <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I created a bug, hoping that I filled out every field correctly. >> >> >> >> >> >> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11222/Date-readFrom-pattern-year-2-decimals-not-20xx-but-00xx >> >> >> >> Sabine >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Stéphane Ducasse [via Smalltalk] >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hello Sabine >> >> > probably a bug. >> >> > If you can write some tests and publish them on the bugtracker this will >> >> > help. >> >> > If you provide the fix (it will be faster to get it fixed) please run >> >> > the >> >> > tests to make sure that we do not >> >> > introduce side effects. >> >> > >> >> > Stef >> >> > >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> Date readFrom: '4.2.13' readStream pattern: 'd.m.yy' >> >> >> >> >> >> Does not return 4.2.2013 but 4.2.0013 >> >> >> >> >> >> The comment is saying >> >> >> "A year given using only two decimals is considered to be >2000" >> >> >> >> >> >> So, the comment is not ok or this is a bug? >> >> >> >> >> >> Sabine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427.html >> >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ________________________________ >> >> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >> >> > below: >> >> > >> >> > http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427p4700428.html >> >> > To unsubscribe from Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0, click >> >> > here. >> >> > NAML >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> View this message in context: Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? >> >> Pharo2.0 >> >> >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Mariano >> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >> > below: >> > http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427p4700533.html >> > To unsubscribe from Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0, click here. >> > NAML >> >> View this message in context: Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0 >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
In reply to this post by Sabine Manaa
It was already discussed and modified: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?10869
Regards
2013/7/24 Sabine Knöfel <[hidden email]> Hi, |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:34 PM, José Comesaña <[hidden email]> wrote: > It was already discussed and modified: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?10869 > This one is just an open report… no action was done. I have merged it into Issue 11222 But there is a third issue about exactly the same, this I think is from you: 10870 Corrections to Date class >>readFrom:pattern: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10870 > Regards > > 2013/7/24 Sabine Knöfel <[hidden email]> > Hi, > > Date readFrom: '4.2.13' readStream pattern: 'd.m.yy' > > Does not return 4.2.2013 but 4.2.0013 > > The comment is saying > "A year given using only two decimals is considered to be >2000" > > So, the comment is not ok or this is a bug? > > Sabine > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Bug-in-Date-readFrom-pattern-Pharo2-0-tp4700427.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > |
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
I think so. I think Stef created 10869 and I 10870. I had made the corrections and written the tests. Anyway, it is possible that I had made it bad. I thought I had commited the slice, but...
If you tell me how, I will do it again.
Regards 2013/7/29 Marcus Denker <[hidden email]>
|
Re: Bug in Date>>readFrom:pattern: ? Pharo2.0
|
|
On Jul 30, 2013, at 12:47 AM, José Comesaña <[hidden email]> wrote: I think so. I think Stef created 10869 and I 10870. I had made the corrections and written the tests. Anyway, it is possible that I had made it bad. I thought I had commited the slice, but... What we could do now is to merge you issue into the 11222 (it has a long discussion already). And then you can commit your code as a Slice for 11222 for the others there to check. Marcus
|
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |