Updated Javadoc: date format patterns SPR-17366 #1989
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Well spotted! I'll backport this to 5.0.10 as well. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The javadoc here: https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/format/annotation/DateTimeFormat.ISO.html#DATE_TIME
states that the ISO DATE_TIME format uses the pattern
yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss.SSSZbut in fact the pattern is
yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss.SSSXXXThe change was made by this commit:
bb94ba6#diff-4e8b86c8c802560c74bf5647b9c91bb6
The javadoc needs to be changed to reflect the reality. The same also applies for the TIME format.
The actual difference is in the colon in the time zone offset. It was added in the commit mentioned above, and the examples in the documentation are correct. But not the pattern and it might be confusing.