Fixed #31623 -- Allowed specifying number of adjacent time units in timesince()/timeuntil().

[timpark0807]

Overview

Ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/31623

The timesince function returns the time between two datetime objects as a formatted string.

The previous implementation always returned two units of time. This update improves flexibility by allowing the user to specify the number of units to be returned. To preserve existing functionality, the default depth value is set to 2.

Example

• depth = 1 returns "2 weeks"
• depth = 2 returns "2 weeks, 3 days"
• depth = 3 returns "2 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours"
• depth = 4 returns "2 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 13 minutes"

Update includes:

• New depth functionality
• New test cases
• Updated Doc Strings
• Updated Release Notes

Let me know if you see anything.

Thanks!

[timpark0807]

PR ready to review.

[smithdc1]

Hi @timpark0807

Thanks for this. 👍

My notes:

• What do you think about timeuntil. Could pass through depth here as well?

• https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/templates/builtins/#timesince These docs will need updating.

• This doesn't quite work as I would have expected in the example below. In the second example I'd have expected a number of days to be returned. Thoughts?

>>> d = datetime.datetime(year=2018, month=3, day=22)
>>> timesince(d, depth=4)
'2\xa0years, 3\xa0months, 2\xa0weeks, 2\xa0days'

>>> d = datetime.datetime(year=2018, month=3, day=2)
>>> timesince(d, depth=4)
'2\xa0years, 4\xa0months'

[timpark0807]

Hi @timpark0807

Thanks for this. 👍

My notes:

• What do you think about timeuntil. Could pass through depth here as well?
• https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/templates/builtins/#timesince These docs will need updating.
• This doesn't quite work as I would have expected in the example below. In the second example I'd have expected a number of days to be returned. Thoughts?

>>> d = datetime.datetime(year=2018, month=3, day=22)
>>> timesince(d, depth=4)
'2\xa0years, 3\xa0months, 2\xa0weeks, 2\xa0days'

>>> d = datetime.datetime(year=2018, month=3, day=2)
>>> timesince(d, depth=4)
'2\xa0years, 4\xa0months'

@smithdc1 Thanks for taking the time to look through this PR.

My responses are below:

• Great catch on the timeuntil depth. I'll modify that to accept a pass through depth parameter.
• Sounds good. I will work on putting those docs together once this gets approval from the community to go through.
• The timesince function only returns adjacent time units. Because there are 0 weeks between 3/2/18 and 7/5/20, the day/hour/minute units will not be processed.

Screenshot using http://www.mathcats.com/explore/elapsedtime.html

As a side note, I was able to implement a timesince function that would be able to skip through missing adjacent units (The example above would return 2 Years, 4 Months, 3 Days, 10 Hours) but I didn't want to mess with original functionality. I'm happy to discuss this further and create a new ticket if this type of behavior is desired.

[smithdc1]

• The timesince function only returns adjacent time units. Because there are 0 weeks between 3/2/18 and 7/5/20, the day/hour/minute units will not be processed.

The current function only returns a depth of two, so stopping if there isn't an adjacent time depth gives the answer I would expect. (example below)

When depth is increased to three or above there is a chance one of the depths is "0" but there are values at more granular time depths. Chopping at the first "0" I find surprising (just my opinion, I'm sure there are others!).

For completeness I think the example you posted is what would expect. 👍
This --> 2 Years, 4 Months, 3 Days, 10 Hours
Not --> 2 Years, 4 Months, 0 Weeks, 3 Days, 10 Hours

>>> d = datetime(year=2018, month=6, day=2)
>>> timesince(d)
'2\xa0years, 1\xa0month'
>>> d = datetime(year=2018, month=6, day=20)
>>> timesince(d)
'2\xa0years'

[timpark0807]

When depth is increased to three or above there is a chance one of the depths is "0" but there are values at more granular time depths. Chopping at the first "0" I find surprising (just my opinion, I'm sure there are others!).

For completeness I think the example you posted is what would expect. 👍
This --> 2 Years, 4 Months, 3 Days, 10 Hours
Not --> 2 Years, 4 Months, 0 Weeks, 3 Days, 10 Hours

I 100% agree with your opinion.

However, I decided against changing the behavior within this PR because the original ticket specifically states "The existing rule of values having to be adjacent to one another should still remain."

Let's get the community opinion to see if we should proceed with a modified ticket to not chop at the first "0".

[felixxm]

@timpark0807 Thanks 👍

[timpark0807]

@felixxm Thanks for the thorough review. I got a bit carried away with my first PR. I'll keep these comments in mind for future commits. Let me know if you see anything else 👍

[felixxm]

@claudep You mentioned in the ticket and on the mailing list that the most important thing is to make it easily customizable, however I don't see how this PR solves this. I'm fine with limiting this PR to the depth argument. Do you think we should refactor timesince()?

[claudep]

I don't remember if I had a specific idea in mind sorry. I guess a refactor can always be done later.

[felixxm]

@timpark0807 Thanks 👍 I added check for a depth value and pushed small edits. IMO we should keep the current behavior and refactoring (if necessary) can be done in a separate PR/ticket.

[carltongibson]

OK, yes, looks tidy. Thank you @timpark0807, and everyone else for reviews.

[sudip358]

can you help me tp develop how old am i script similar to this?