fix(common): date pipe is giving error weeks #37632
Conversation
|
@AndrewKushnir flaky failures on ci |
Hi @ajitsinghkaler, thanks for the fix
I've left a couple comments, please have a look when you get a chance.
FYI I've added the "breaking change" label to this PR. Even though it's a bug fix, it changes the behavior that other developers may rely on.
I'd also like to ask @petebacondarwin to have a look at this change as I'm not super familiar with this code and having additional reviewer would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Date pipe is giving wrong week number when used with the date format 'w'. If first week(according to Iso) has some days in previous year Fixes angular#33961
Thanks for this fix. It appears to be correct.
I suggest a refactoring that would be less code and a bit simpler.
LGTM
|
FYI I've started presubmit (+ global one) in Google's codebase, will let you know the result as soon as I have it. Thank you. |
Thanks for the fix @ajitsinghkaler
|
Hi @ajitsinghkaler, just want to give a quick update. Running tests in Google's codebase didn't indicate any issues, which is great. Also given the fact that this is a bug fix with low risk, I'm removing the "breaking changes" flag. In any case, since the behavior of the framework changes slightly (to become more accurate), we would merge it to master only and it will be released as a part of the next minor version (v10.1.0). Thank you. |
|
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
Date pipe is giving wrong week number when used with the date format 'w'. If first week(according to Iso) has some days in previous year Fixes angular#33961 PR Close angular#37632
DDtae pipe is giving wrong week number made a change that will return correct week numbers for ifferent years
Fixes #33961
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: