Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with
or
.
Download ZIP

Loading…

Date() constructor does not support seemingly valid inputs #72

Open
powdahound opened this Issue · 0 comments

1 participant

@powdahound

The Date() object can't be passed strings like "YYYY-MM-DD" or "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS" even though they appear valid. The resulting value will always end up as a 0. Since this is a Rhino limitation, couchdb-lucene should provide a different method for letting people work with date strings.

More info in the IRC transcript:

3:17:05 PM rnewson: but sort_order is zero for new Date(\"2010-05-14\") or anything.
3:17:08 PM rnewson: yeah.
3:17:17 PM powdahound: so now we're on the same page :)
3:17:20 PM rnewson: fascinating. thank goodness it's a real bug.
3:17:30 PM powdahound: haha yeah
3:18:58 PM rnewson: should be easy to track down now I see it in my ide
3:19:04 PM rnewson: thanks for your patience.
3:19:13 PM powdahound: I was going to add logging to toDate() in FieldType.java but didn't know how to get a logger object there :p
3:19:27 PM powdahound: no problem - thanks for not just assuming i was crazy :)
3:21:31 PM rnewson: wow.
3:21:36 PM rnewson: Context.jsToJava(args[0], Date.class);
3:21:44 PM rnewson: returns a date with 0 for that NativeDate from Rhino.
3:21:50 PM rnewson: Rhino bug? That's pretty awful.
3:22:24 PM powdahound: weak
3:22:35 PM rnewson: it seems to do this: ((NativeDate)value).getJSTimeValue();
3:22:40 PM rnewson: internally
3:23:05 PM rnewson: ahh
3:23:17 PM rnewson: / XXX: This will replace NaN by 0
3:23:21 PM powdahound: is it angry about a timezone or something special like that?
3:23:36 PM rnewson: my guess is that it would really be NaN but it's coerced to 0 for Java
3:23:39 PM powdahound: well how'd we get a NaN?
3:23:45 PM rnewson: not sure.
3:23:54 PM powdahound: i've written a lot of javascript and have always created dates that way
3:24:14 PM powdahound: at least in browsers...
3:25:42 PM rnewson: yep. I tweaked the test. 
3:25:58 PM rnewson: new Date("yyyy-mm-dd") returns zero for every date I've tried.
3:26:30 PM powdahound: "yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss" fails too
3:27:01 PM rnewson: gets the right answer for new Date(2010,8,13)
3:27:38 PM powdahound: cool
3:28:38 PM rnewson: I updated the test that shows that, at least.
3:28:48 PM powdahound: rnewson: creating them that way fixes the same issue in couchdb views too (although its not using rhino…)
3:28:58 PM rnewson: interesting.
3:29:11 PM rnewson: so neither spidermonkey or rhino like that then.
3:29:18 PM powdahound: v8 is cool with it
3:29:23 PM rnewson: yeah
3:29:31 PM rnewson: I tested it in node repl also
3:29:46 PM powdahound: firefox uses spidermonkey and it works there
3:29:51 PM powdahound: doesn't it?
3:29:57 PM rnewson: no idea.
3:30:16 PM powdahound: yeah it does
3:30:42 PM rnewson: well, I'm stumped. it's not c-l, at least.
3:31:21 PM powdahound: Date.parse("2010-08-13") also doesn't work and I'm pretty sure that's supposed to return a Date object also
3:31:49 PM rnewson: right but if it only works for certain patterns and returns NaN for invalid ones, that would explain both things.
3:32:10 PM rnewson: c-l understands a few date formats, perhaps just use that?
3:32:32 PM powdahound: but its not just different patterns, it's single string arg vs multiple ints
3:32:55 PM powdahound: i'm definitely OK passing it in split up like that but it'd be nice to put something in place so others don't get burned by this
3:32:56 PM rnewson: well, the ints require no parsing, so I can see that would work
3:33:02 PM powdahound: and it is strange that Date.parse() doesn't work
3:33:39 PM rnewson: this is 1.7R2 of rhino, checking for updates
3:34:24 PM rnewson: that's the latest.
3:38:09 PM rnewson: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=586268
3:38:37 PM powdahound: neat
3:39:22 PM powdahound: c-l should probably throw warnings in these cases?
3:40:45 PM rnewson: how will it know? this is internal to rhino.
3:40:53 PM rnewson: 0 is a legitimate value for a date :(
3:41:08 PM powdahound: hmm true
3:41:53 PM powdahound: i guess the first time c-l sees the result its too late to be able to detect any misuse
3:43:14 PM rnewson: I'd use the built-in javascript engine in jdk6 if Apple hadn't replaced it with their own scripting language on OS X.
3:43:29 PM rnewson: but I think it's probably a fork of rhino anyway
3:45:33 PM powdahound: looks like my sort_order values are in microseconds when using Date() objects
3:46:34 PM powdahound: maybe i'll just stick with the strings - definitely less code than building date objects turned out to be
3:46:44 PM powdahound: var date_obj = new Date(parts[0], parts[1], parts[2], parts[3], parts[4], parts[5]); :(
3:47:40 PM rnewson: c-l parses the strings itself and should error if you pass a non-matching one.
3:47:48 PM rnewson: perhaps I should remove the Date object support?
3:48:17 PM powdahound: it's certainly tricky right now
3:48:34 PM powdahound: what if you have a special field type for date where it expects a certain format?
3:49:30 PM rnewson: new Date(\"January 6, 1972 16:05:00\"), works fine
3:49:54 PM rnewson: hm, perhaps an enhancement where you can pass the date parsing pattern?
3:50:41 PM powdahound: all comes down to simplicity vs power :)
3:51:52 PM rnewson: well, we've tracked it down and found the cause.
3:52:09 PM powdahound: always better than walking away
3:52:21 PM rnewson: I think being able to do {"type":"date","date_pattern":"YYYY-MM-DD"} would be neat.
3:52:29 PM powdahound: even if nothing is changed now I think a warning in the README would be nice
3:52:29 PM powdahound: yeah
3:52:56 PM rnewson: could you file an issue for this specific bug?
3:53:03 PM rnewson: I'm too tired to fix it, it's midnight.
3:53:17 PM powdahound: yeah i'll add a ticket. thanks for your help
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.