Bug #12285: Date.iso8601 does not properly handle partial date strings

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-darwin15]
• Backport: 2.1: REQUIRED, 2.2: REQUIRED, 2.3: REQUIRED

[backus (John Backus)]

For reduced accuracy, any number of values may be dropped from any of the date and time representations, but in the order from the least to the most significant. For example, "2004-05" is a valid ISO 8601 date, which indicates May (the fifth month) 2004.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#cite_ref-AccuracyVsPrecision_8-0

However if I parse this example value with Date.iso8601 I get "January 5th, 2004" when I expect "May 1st, 2004":

$ irb -r date
2.3.0 :001 > date = Date.iso8601('2004-05')
 => #<Date: 2004-01-05 ((2453010j,0s,0n),+0s,2299161j)>
2.3.0 :002 > date.month
 => 1

[backus (John Backus)]

Could anyone tell me who to talk to find out if this issue is a WONTFIX? I have only reported a few things on this bug tracker so far so I'm not sure who to ping on an issue if it seems to be overlooked.

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

Date is not maintained now. We can not answer your concern.

[zverok (Victor Shepelev)]

Date is not maintained now. We can not answer your concern.

What does this mean? Date is in a separated gem now, or just not all of the standard library has its maintainers?
This is also related to DateTime, as far as I can understand?

[backus (John Backus)]

Victor Shepelev wrote:

Date is not maintained now. We can not answer your concern.

What does this mean? Date is in a separated gem now, or just not all of the standard library has its maintainers?
This is also related to DateTime, as far as I can understand?

I'm interested in the answer for this too. What exactly does "Date is not maintained" mean? Is there something in the documentation that conveys this? What else is not maintained in the standard library?

[duerst (Martin Dürst)]

There is some information about library maintainers e.g. at
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/MaintainersStdlib or
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/Contributors,
but these may not be up to date.

[nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)]

• Status changed from Open to Assigned
• Assignee set to tadf (tadayoshi funaba)

As I read the code, Date.iso8601 allows to omit a month by '-', but not a day.
It feels like a bug to me, but uncertain.

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

all of the standard library has its maintainers?

Yes. See https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/doc/maintainers.rdoc

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

• Has duplicate Bug #12833: incorrect iso8601 parsing of YYYY-MM format added

[jonwolski (Jon Wolski)]

• File iso8601_YYYY_MM.patch iso8601_YYYY_MM.patch added

I had submitted a patch to an issue that got marked as a 'duplicate' (though it is still "open"). My ticket is not "assigned," so maybe it would help to add the patch here as well. Also, the corresponding pull-request on GitHub is https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1463

[jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)]

• Has duplicate Bug #12981: Date.parse raises an Argument error under a specific condition added

[jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)]

• Status changed from Assigned to Open
• Assignee deleted (tadf (tadayoshi funaba))

[nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed

Applied in changeset git|75fb0a9afad1685cedee9c7665a7f30ec95068fc.

---

Allow mday in Date.iso8601 to be omitted

[Bug #12285]