fix(isISO8601): validate signed ordinal dates in strict mode - #2865
Open
abhijeet117 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
fix(isISO8601): validate signed ordinal dates in strict mode#2865abhijeet117 wants to merge 1 commit into
abhijeet117 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2865 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 114 114
Lines 2599 2599
Branches 658 658
=========================================
Hits 2599 2599 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
In strict mode,
isValidDatematched ordinal dates with a pattern that had no sign prefix, even though the mainisISO8601patterns accept a leading+or-on the year. Signed ordinal dates therefore fell through to the calendar-date branch, where the three-digit day of year was split into a bogus month and day: valid dates like+2009-145were rejected, and others passed without any day-of-year check. The pattern now accepts an optional sign and routes these to the existing ordinal validation, including its leap-year bound.Testing
Reproduced before the fix:
isISO8601('+2009-145', { strict: true })returned false while the unsigned2009-145returned true. Added a focused case intest/validators.test.jscovering signed valid dates, a leap-year day 366, and a non-leap day 366 rejection.Checklist