Skip to content

Conversation

@rxaviers
Copy link
Member

Fixes #683

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Contributor

I looked at the diff and didn't find anything fishy. But I don't understand most of what's being changed there, so not sure how valuable that kind of review really is.

@rxaviers
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for checking it out @jzaefferer, the goal is to fix #683 and the relevant change is this one https://github.com/globalizejs/globalize/pull/692/files#diff-4b6bbfed329023ed0ac60539e2ee7e4eR377

date = startOf( date, "second" );
assertParseDate( assert, "5:35:07 PM", { time: "medium" }, date );
assertParseDate( assert, ،٣٥،٠٧ م", { time: "medium" }, date, ar );
assertParseDate( assert, :٣٥:٠٧ م", { time: "medium" }, date, ar );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you explain what this assertion is doing and what you changed here and why? That might help understand the bigger picture.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In previous CLDR (when this test was created), ، was used as time separator. In recent CLDR, it was reverted to use : again. Although, the parser was buggy and didn't actually check for that. It was still passing because whatever character was working there. After the fix, this needed fix.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Gotcha, thanks. Now this change makes a lot more sense.

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Contributor

Besides the "should parse invalid literal as null" test, there doesn't seem to be any new test to support "parse literals" here. Maybe there should be a new functional test for that?

@rxaviers
Copy link
Member Author

Besides the "should parse invalid literal as null" test, there doesn't seem to be any new test to support "parse literals" here.

I've added an additional unit test a4fd84f. Now I ran out of ideas how to better test it. Thanks.

Maybe there should be a new functional test for that?

In the spirit of not repeating (unnecessary) tests (which I mostly learned from you 😝), I don't see how functional tests can help in this specific fix, but I'm open for ideas (in such case we can add it in a separate PR).

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Contributor

Having one extra test seems fine. I don't understand what its doing though.

@rxaviers rxaviers merged commit 2568ce7 into globalizejs:master Feb 23, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants