Skip to content

[3.10] Check result of utc_to_seconds and skip fold probe in pure Python (GH-91581) #92746

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 14, 2022

Conversation

miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

The utc_to_seconds call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on
Linux:

TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)"

The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only
because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail
fast.

This also refactors the tests to split out the fromtimestamp and
utcfromtimestamp tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired
limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we
detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g.
Windows).

As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even
though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to
guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that
datetime.utcfromtimestamp fails in the C and pure Python versions, which
was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically —
since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a
fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python
utcfromtimestamp method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01.

There are two separate news entries for this because one is a
potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code
correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The
two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are
probably best thought of as independent changes.

Fixes GH-91581
(cherry picked from commit 83c0247)

Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle [email protected]

…thonGH-91582)

The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on
Linux:

TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)"

The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only
because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail
fast.

This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and
`utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired
limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we
detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g.
Windows).

As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even
though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to
guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that
`datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which
was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically —
since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a
fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python
`utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01.

There are two separate news entries for this because one is a
potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code
correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The
two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are
probably best thought of as independent changes.

Fixes pythonGH-91581
(cherry picked from commit 83c0247)

Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
@pganssle pganssle changed the title [3.10] Check result of utc_to_seconds and skip fold probe in pure Python (GH-91582) [3.10] Check result of utc_to_seconds and skip fold probe in pure Python (GH-91581) May 12, 2022
@kumaraditya303
Copy link
Contributor

Bot seems stuck, reapplying labels to trigger the bot.

@miss-islington miss-islington merged commit 36d42e7 into python:3.10 May 14, 2022
@miss-islington miss-islington deleted the backport-83c0247-3.10 branch May 14, 2022 15:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants