[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-214?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13944126#comment-13944126
 ] 

Francesco Chicchiriccò commented on OLINGO-214:
-----------------------------------------------

Forget the patch, I've provided a more consistent implementation in the 
{{olingo200}} branch; check
 * 
[EdmDateTime|https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.git;a=blob;f=lib/commons-core/src/main/java/org/apache/olingo/commons/core/edm/primitivetype/EdmDateTime.java;h=af2793b93a058a645aa4ae3d2d0aa2d020468196;hb=4780fc513b5f85ae6a6aa0615fdde0e258caa4f5]
 * 
[EdmDateTimeOffset|https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.git;a=blob;f=lib/commons-core/src/main/java/org/apache/olingo/commons/core/edm/primitivetype/EdmDateTimeOffset.java;h=f1b707fd075ded5962daa11036d2fc8bd6c25dd2;hb=4780fc513b5f85ae6a6aa0615fdde0e258caa4f5]
 * 
[EdmTimeOfDay|https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.git;a=blob;f=lib/commons-core/src/main/java/org/apache/olingo/commons/core/edm/primitivetype/EdmTimeOfDay.java;h=2003b098b3b1a51ba4972fcb82f52b8d18877b17;hb=4780fc513b5f85ae6a6aa0615fdde0e258caa4f5]

> EdmTimeOfDay / EdmDateTimeOffset don't support required precision
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OLINGO-214
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-214
>             Project: Olingo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: odata4-commons
>            Reporter: Francesco Chicchiriccò
>            Assignee: Francesco Chicchiriccò
>             Fix For: V4 0.1.0
>
>
> As reported in mailing list [1] the current implementation of EdmTimeOfDay 
> and EdmDateTimeOffset do not seem to respect the OData 4.0 specification, 
> because they only support a precision up to 3, while the specification 
> requires 12 for both.
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/6tsomtfhxsj2zopv



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to