Changing parse behaviour for 8 digit date #639
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #639 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.21% 95.23% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 302 302
Lines 2506 2521 +15
==========================================
+ Hits 2386 2401 +15
Misses 120 120
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Gallaecio
reviewed
Mar 20, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me as long as it does not break any existing tests (it does not 👍). Good job!
Gallaecio
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2020
Gallaecio
reviewed
Mar 20, 2020
noviluni
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #618
An attempt at #618 , the objective is to improve the parsing of dates of the form XXXXXXXX (Any 8 digit number).
Updated parsing results after this fix
20202001 datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 20, 0, 0)01201702 datetime.datetime(1702, 1, 20, 0, 0)01202020 datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 20, 0, 0)20202020 datetime.datetime(2002, 2, 2, 0, 2)For the last case
20202020it's going back to the default behavior.