Improve timestamp handling

[ruflin]

No description provided.

[karmi]

Hi @ruflin, we have found your signature in our records, but it seems like you have signed with a different e-mail than the one used in yout Git commit. Can you please add both of these e-mails into your Github profile (they can be hidden), so we can match your e-mails to your Github profile?

[karmi]

Hi @ruflin, we have found your signature in our records, but it seems like you have signed with a different e-mail than the one used in yout Git commit. Can you please add both of these e-mails into your Github profile (they can be hidden), so we can match your e-mails to your Github profile?

[ruflin]

Before merging this, we need @morganchristiansson to sign the CLA as I directly took his commit.

[andrewkroh]

LGTM, but still needs CLA

[karmi]

@andrewkroh, @ruflin, note this is a bug in the CLA checker, which should have pinged Morgan specifically, because only his commit is not signed. I'll have a look into that.

[morganchristiansson]

Apologies about not signing the CLA. I wasn't sure whether it was needed for just the 2 test cases.

My company is very reasonable about this I should have it ready by COB today.

Thank you!

[ruflin]

@morganchristiansson Nice, thanks a lot. Can you quickly ping me here as soon as it is signed so I can manually check and merge it then?

[morganchristiansson]

CLAs have been signed by both CTO and myself. @ruflin

[ruflin]

@morganchristiansson Looks good. Do you mind if I add the git@... email address also to our CLA checker? Because that is the one that is checked because it is in the git commit.

[morganchristiansson]

Yeah go ahead. Thank you.

[ruflin]

@morganchristiansson Done. So future commits will be automatically recognized by the CLA checker.

With merging this PR I think we resolved the most pressing issues in #1831 Feel free to open a new issue in case you think further changes to the timestamp handling are needed.

[morganchristiansson]

Thanks @ruflin! Unfortunately I already have to raise another issue #1893 :-) but it's not urgent this time.

[ruflin]

Thanks. Will have a look.

[tsg]

@ruflin I'm late to the party here, but we could have also modified the ParseTime functions to accept RFC3339, I think, because it would have been backwards compatible because RFC3339 is a super-set of what we had before. I have a feeling that not using RFC3339 as our default everywhere is going to cause other issues like this one in other parts of the code.

[ruflin]

@tsg That's the first thing I did but it broke quite a few things like the logging output changed a little bit or at least some tests broke. So to not bloat up the PR I only implemented the change there. But in general +1 on change it on a global level.

[tsg]

Thanks @ruflin, sounds good.

[ruflin]

@tsg Should we open an issue to implement it on a general level?