Hi Federico, Thanks for the updated patch. I commited it now as revision 2023 with some additional tests. I agree that the current behaviour is most likely better than the previous: If some date format does not contain certain fields, it is better to fill it up with defaults.
Thanks, Dominik On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 5:46 PM Federico Kircheis < federico.kirch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/01/2021 14.36, Dominik Seichter wrote: > > Hi Federico, > > > > Thanks for the patch. I also added the test to the existing DateTest. > > Thank you for looking at it. > > > Unfortunately, it is failing some of the existing tests now (see updated > > patch and test failure output attached). > > I was reading through 3.8.3. Dates of the PDF specification, but could > > not figure out, if the new behaviour is correct or not. > > > > Especially, these dates are considered valid now, but where invalid > before: > > D:2012010 > > D:20120 > > Yes, those should not be valid... both day and month, as far as I've > understood the specification, are composed by two digits. > > > And for "D:20120530235959Z00'00'" we are getting a different time value > now. > > > > Any ideas? > > > I'll give a look at your patch ASAP. > > > > > Best regards, > > Dominik > > >
_______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
