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

EZP-32018: Fixed empty ezdate field transformation #1464

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 12, 2020

Conversation

barw4
Copy link
Member

@barw4 barw4 commented Oct 12, 2020

JIRA issue: EZP-32018

Empty field value for ezdate fieldtype has been handled additionally.

Copy link
Member

@glye glye left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok but not CS kosher, AFAICR.

lib/ezutils/classes/eztimestamp.php Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@andrerom
Copy link
Contributor

👍

@andrerom
Copy link
Contributor

andrerom commented Oct 12, 2020

@barw4 Can you merge this (squash, so the one using the UI here for instance), then merge 2019.03 into master, and if your up for it also release v2019.03.6 (I can show you how).

@barw4 barw4 merged commit 9f16e49 into 2019.03 Oct 12, 2020
@barw4 barw4 deleted the ezp-32018-empty-ezdate branch October 12, 2020 14:10
@barw4
Copy link
Member Author

barw4 commented Oct 12, 2020

Merged into master: 10902ec

@pkamps
Copy link
Contributor

pkamps commented Oct 13, 2020

It's unlikely, but what about if you actually want the timestamp to be '0'? That would return NULL instead of 1.1.1970, right?

@gggeek
Copy link
Contributor

gggeek commented Oct 13, 2020

@pkamps you are right. I am pretty sure that there have been changes not too long ago in the ez5 kernel to deal with 0/null as default and 0 as valid datetime. I think here we should reproduce the same logic (might be even worth some unit testing)...

@pkamps
Copy link
Contributor

pkamps commented Oct 13, 2020

You're talking about this one? https://jira.ez.no/browse/EZP-16509

We fixed it in our fork - still an open pull request: mugoweb#188

@barw4
Copy link
Member Author

barw4 commented Oct 14, 2020

@pkamps thank you for the catch, fixed here: #1465

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants