Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Different time parsing functions used in library vs test code #66

Closed
netrounds-fredrik opened this issue Oct 31, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Comments

@netrounds-fredrik
Copy link
Contributor

The use of the arrow library was removed in #40 (#38), but then re-added in for the tests in f50cad5. So currently the m3u8 library and it's tests are using different time parsing functions.

Is there a reason for doing this?

@leandromoreira leandromoreira changed the title Different time parsing funktions used in library vs test code Different time parsing functions used in library vs test code Oct 31, 2015
@leandromoreira
Copy link
Contributor

I don't know if there is any reason, can @Neon-Dlea help us here? ;) Anyway I think we should at least use the same time parsing functions, thanks @netrounds-fredrik

@flavioribeiro
Copy link
Contributor

Yep, mind sending a PR removing arrow from the tests and requirements-dev?

@mauricioabreu
Copy link
Member

Related PR: #134

@mauricioabreu
Copy link
Member

@netrounds-fredrik sorry for the late reply

I guess the problem was Python compatibility. Python 2.6/2.7 did not have an easy way to compare dates with timezones. To solve it I created a class to represent a tzinfo to construct a timezone aware date. Thank you for opening this issue!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants