Timex function for hasFullDate and hasValidHour builtin-functions

[cosmicshuai]

closes: #2869
Now we have 7 timex related functions:
HasFullDate, HasValidTime, HasValidDuration, HasValidDate, HasValidTimeRange, HasValidDateRange, IsPresent

[chrimc62]

ValidateArityAndAnyType(expr, 1, 1, ReturnType.Object) [](start = 28, length = 54)

You can validate to object | string, right? Numbers or arrays are not allowed.

[cosmicshuai]

Yes, these two functions can have a string or a TimexProperty as an argument.
Here ReturnType.Object represents a base type which includes string, number and boolean, etc.
The actual type checking is in the body of functions.

[boydc2014]

Our ReturnType.Object today actually works like a any not a object, so object | number won't be able to reject number or array, so we probably can refine the type checking types later.

[chrimc62]

alidateArityAndAnyType(expr, 1, 1, ReturnType.Object)), [](start = 29, length = 55)

same comment

[chrimc62]

🕐

[chrimc62]

Why not hasValidX for other things like month/day/year/minute/duration? If I said "when do you want to leave" and got a response of "the 30th", I might want to check for not having a month for example.

---

In reply to: 399361646 [](ancestors = 399361646)

[cosmicshuai]

@vishwacsena
Based on Chris' comment above, maybe we can add a 'hasValidTimexProperty' function, which is simillar to addToTime. The signature of this function is hasValidTimexProperty(timex, property).
timex is either a TimexProperty or a string,
property is a string, like year, month, day, hour, duration, etc.

[vishwacsena]

@cosmicshuai yes, we can always take that as an additive change. Are you suggesting we do it instead of this one? If so, I'd only be concerned about scoping it (which is what the trimmed proposal here was supposed to be). My vote would be for us to add these now and add the generic function to the backlog. Ok?

[cosmicshuai]

@vishwacsena
Sure. I will add the generic function in another PR.

[chrimc62]

I'm not sure I buy this. While it lessens the risk for now, it comes at the cost of adding more functions which overlap--doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me.

---

In reply to: 618771234 [](ancestors = 618771234)

[cosmicshuai]

@chrimc62 @vishwacsena
As I found some references about timex inference functions,
https://github.com/microsoft/Recognizers-Text/blob/master/.NET/Microsoft.Recognizers.Text.DataTypes.TimexExpression/TimexInference.cs
I rewrote timex prebuilt functions. Now we have 7 related functions,
HasFullDate, HasValidTime, HasValidDuration, HasValidDate, HasValidTimeRange, HasValidDateRange, IsPresent
The functionalities are identical to those in TimexInference.
Do you have any idea or suggestion? Should we keep the same naming as the TimexInference library?

[chrimc62]

I like keeping the names the same.

---

In reply to: 620470357 [](ancestors = 620470357)

[chrimc62]