Bugs item #3065292, was opened at 2010-09-13 16:32
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by a1s
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=746843&aid=3065292&group_id=140566
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Invalid
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: jno (jno-)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: y2k fix proposed
Initial Comment:
Some applications still use DBF. This is a matter of fact.
But the DBF is not supposed to handle Y2K+ dates. But it does.
But the dbfpy cannot handle them. But it should.
So, I propose a [incomplete] fix to utils.getDate().
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: alexander smishlajev (a1s)
Date: 2010-09-13 21:33
Message:
first, DBF is perfectly capable of handling dates in the 21st century and
beyond - both date and datetime fields store at least 4-digit year number.
second, proposed folding of 2-digit year numbers is performed in current
implementation by time.strptime().
by the way, if you post a patch, please use unified diff format.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=746843&aid=3065292&group_id=140566
|
