[Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH] tests: test_dates: work without datetime.date.fromisoformat()

[Cole Robinson]

On 5/21/19 11:21 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
> datetime.date.fromisoformat() was introduced in Python 3.7, so provide
> an alternative implementation for it with older Python versions.
> 
> Fixes commit 5da3b8fdd836a55a58365718e93d0372fcc2bf0b.
> ---
>  tests/test_dates.py | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/test_dates.py b/tests/test_dates.py
> index aa8db17..49df613 100644
> --- a/tests/test_dates.py
> +++ b/tests/test_dates.py
> @@ -2,14 +2,26 @@
>  # See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
>  
>  import datetime
> +import re
> +import sys
>  
>  from . import util
>  
>  
> +if sys.version_info >= (3, 7):
> +    def _parse_iso_date(date_string):
> +        return datetime.date.fromisoformat(date_string)
> +else:
> +    def _parse_iso_date(date_string):
> +        m = re.match("([0-9]{4})-([0-9]{2})-([0-9]{2})", date_string)
> +        assert m
> +        return datetime.date(int(m.group(1)), int(m.group(2)), int(m.group(3)))
> +
> +

Why two implementations? Seems to me it just increases the odds that the
impls diverge over time, reintroducing version specific issues

I say just use the fallback impl

Thanks,
Cole

>  def _parse_date(date_string):
>      if not date_string:
>          return None
> -    return datetime.date.fromisoformat(date_string)
> +    return _parse_iso_date(date_string)
>  
>  
>  @util.os_parametrize('osxml', filter_dates=True)
> 


- Cole