Fix : UTC based timezone #2177
Fix : UTC based timezone #2177
Conversation
* fix max line failure * edited mac line faliure * whitespace fixed
|
please remove the pytest.log |
|
on "future" fixes you may be want to create a branch for an issue you work on. git -b name our stable branch means released on conda-forge. |
|
Ok sure |
|
@ReimarBauer Kindly review the recent changes made . |
|
not seen that I had to enable tests ;) let us see what they tell. |
| self.fm.modify_user(user_query, attribute="confirmed_on", value=confirm_time) | ||
| self.fm.modify_user(user_query, attribute="confirmed", value=True) | ||
| user_query = User.query.filter_by(id=user.id).first() | ||
| assert user_query.confirmed is True | ||
| assert user_query.confirmed_on == confirm_time | ||
| assert user_query.confirmed_on.replace(tzinfo=None) == confirm_time.replace(tzinfo=None) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this change hides a bug.
When I revert this I get the following error:
FAILED tests/_test_mscolab/test_file_manager.py::Test_FileManager::test_modify_user - assert datetime.datetime(2024, 2, 9, 8, 49, 39, 968400) == datetime.datetime(2024, 2, 9, 8, 49, 39, 968400, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
This means that the database query returns a naive datetime object, which is then not equal to the timezone aware object. I think the database query should return an aware datetime object instead, but I am not yet sure how to make it do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok I didn't realise this situation. I will look into it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can also be handled in a follow-up PR because it is not exactly related to the initial issue that is addressed here. But I would prefer if this line stays as is (i.e. assert user_query.confirmed_on == confirm_time), and the test be marked as xfail instead to acknowledge that this is an issue.
|
I also just noticed that we have a bunch of calls to |
Purpose of PR?:
Fixes #2122
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
NO
If the changes in this PR are manually verified, list down the scenarios covered::
Additional information for reviewer? :
Mention if this PR is part of any design or a continuation of previous PRs
Does this PR results in some Documentation changes?
If yes, include the list of Documentation changes
Checklist:
<type>: <subject>