Replace strftime with f-strings where nicer #33455
Conversation
eumiro
requested review from
potiuk,
ashb,
jedcunningham,
eladkal,
o-nikolas,
ephraimbuddy,
kaxil and
XD-DENG
as code owners
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:dev-tools
area:logging
area:providers
area:Scheduler
|
I’m not particular sure about this, strftime is more obvious and (subjectively) easier to read. The f-string format can be beneficial if the formatted date string is going into another f-string (as in some cases here) but not when it’s on its own. |
|
@uranusjr Reduced to being part of larger f-strings. |
I really like conciseness of the way it's done now. It very nicely focuses the concerns (date + format) in one place within the larger f-string. @uranusjr -> is that good for you as well? |
| "start_time": datetime(2012, 1, 2, 0, 0).strftime("%s") + "000", | ||
| "end_time": datetime(2012, 1, 3, 0, 0).strftime("%s") + "000", | ||
| "start_time": f"{datetime(2012, 1, 2, 0, 0):%s}000", | ||
| "end_time": f"{datetime(2012, 1, 3, 0, 0):%s}000", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It’s probably better to just convert these to literals with a comment, going through datetime just to convert into a datetime is a bit over the top.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed it to a more explicit version.
ephraimbuddy
added
the
type:misc/internal
(cherry picked from commit 94f70d8)
No description provided.