We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
next()
>>> now = 2020-10-19T13:53Z >>> next(--10-19) 2020-10-19T00:00Z
is a bug Something is wrong :( because it returns a datetime that is in the past!
It should be
2021-10-19T00:00Z # next year
Similarly (but less severe), previous() goes back too far
previous()
>>> previous(--10-19) 2019-10-19T00:00Z
when it should be
2020-10-19T00:00Z
because just as T00 is short for T0000 and 01 is short for 01T0000, --10-19 is short for --10-19T0000. I.E. matching date-time components should not be a special case.
because just as T00 is short for T0000 and 01 is short for 01T0000, --10-19 is short for --10-19T0000.
T00
T0000
01
01T0000
--10-19
--10-19T0000
I.E. matching date-time components should not be a special case.
Note this is somewhat of a breaking change, so tagged against next minor version rather than maintenance version.
Originally posted by @MetRonnie in #5777 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We may fix this in metomi/isodatetime#234
Sorry, something went wrong.
To close this issue, these tests should be fixed:
cylc-flow/tests/unit/cycling/test_iso8601.py
Line 688 in 238ce28
Line 712 in 238ce28
@MetRonnie - bumping this back to 8.4 for now as it seems to have stagnated for a bit.
👍 The fix is ready but has not been a priority for review
MetRonnie
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
is a bugSomething is wrong :(
because it returns a datetime that is in the past!
It should be
2021-10-19T00:00Z # next year
Similarly (but less severe),
previous()
goes back too farwhen it should be
Note this is somewhat of a breaking change, so tagged against next minor version rather than maintenance version.
Originally posted by @MetRonnie in #5777 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: