Move to ciso8601 for datetime #5692
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pull-request-size
bot
added
the
size/S
|
I've brought up a python 3.8 RockyLinux ST2 using this change, and added some debugging to check that it didn't fall through to the catchall of using standard datetime. I haven't done any benchmarking but the benchmarking of ciso8601 compared to udatetime compared to native python is available on other sites. It generally is much better than native python but not quite as quick as udatetime. |
rush-skills
approved these changes
Aug 3, 2022
|
Just to be clear - you mean ISO8601, correct? |
|
ISO8601 is the standard ciso8601 is the python library |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problems using udatetime on python3.9 and it isn't supported.
It was proposed that ciso8601 is used instead.
Relates to #5346