fix: Python 3.11 date.fromisoformat() allows extra formats #1076
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
|
Example diff to test files (similar change needed for most of the other versions) --- a/json/tests/draft2020-12/optional/format/date.json
+++ b/json/tests/draft2020-12/optional/format/date.json
@@ -220,6 +220,26 @@
"description": "invalid non-ASCII '৪' (a Bengali 4)",
"data": "1963-06-1৪",
"valid": false
+ },
+ {
+ "description": "ISO8601 / non-RFC3339: YYYYMMDD without dashes (2023-03-28)",
+ "data": "20230328",
+ "valid": false
+ },
+ {
+ "description": "ISO8601 / non-RFC3339: week number implicit day of week (2023-01-02)",
+ "data": "2023-W01",
+ "valid": false
+ },
+ {
+ "description": "ISO8601 / non-RFC3339: week number with day of week (2023-03-28)",
+ "data": "2023-W13-2",
+ "valid": false
+ },
+ {
+ "description": "ISO8601 / non-RFC3339: week number + day of week + rollover to next year (2023-01-01)",
+ "data": "2022W527",
+ "valid": false
}
]
} |
jvtm
added a commit
to jvtm/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2023
Python 3.11 `datetime` module allows additional ISO8601 date, time and date-time formats that are not RFC3339 5.6 compliant. This change adds tests for invalid `date` values that are at the moment allowed by at least Python `jsonschema` library as valid `date` sttrings. Looks like `date-time` and `time` test cases already cover at least some values that are valid by ISO8601 but not by RFC3339 section 5.6. See: * https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.11.html#datetime * python/cpython@1303f8c927 * https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.fromisoformat * https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339#section-5.6 PR sent to `jsonschema` library python-jsonschema/jsonschema#1076.
jvtm
added a commit
to jvtm/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2023
Python 3.11 `datetime` module allows additional ISO8601 date, time and date-time formats that are not RFC3339 5.6 compliant. This change adds tests for invalid `date` values that are at the moment allowed by at least Python `jsonschema` library as valid `date` sttrings. Looks like `date-time` and `time` test cases already cover at least some values that are valid by ISO8601 but not by RFC3339 section 5.6. See: * https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.11.html#datetime * python/cpython@1303f8c927 * https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.fromisoformat * https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339#section-5.6 PR sent to `jsonschema` library python-jsonschema/jsonschema#1076.
Python 3.11 and later allow additional ISO8601 formats in `datetime` module ISO8601 parsing. These formats are not RFC3339 section 5.6 compliant. Especially `datetime.date.fromisoformat()` now allows strings like: * `20230328` (2023-03-28) * `2022W527` (2023-01-01) * `2023-W01` (2023-01-02) * `2023-W13-2` (2023-03-28) Fix by doing a regular expression check before passing the value to `datetime` module. This made the original `.isascii()` check unnecessary. See: * https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.11.html#datetime * python/cpython@1303f8c927 * https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.fromisoformat * https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339#section-5.6 Tests covering the invalid values to be sent to json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite Fixes python-jsonschema#1056.
jvtm
force-pushed
the
python311-date-fromisoformat-allows-extra-formats
branch
from
956ff9f to
781f8cd
Compare
|
Well done, looks great, pushing alongside an update to the (vendored) suite. Thanks again, appreciated! |
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.
Python 3.11 and later allow additional ISO8601 formats in
datetimemodule ISO8601 parsing. These formats are not RFC3339 section 5.6 compliant.Especially
datetime.date.fromisoformat()now allows strings like:20230328(2023-03-28)2022W527(2023-01-01)2023-W01(2023-01-02)2023-W13-2(2023-03-28)Fix by doing a regular expression check before passing the value to
datetimemodule. This made the original.isascii()check unnecessary.See:
Tests covering the invalid values to be sent to json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite
Fixes #1056.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://python-jsonschema--1076.org.readthedocs.build/en/1076/