This mail is an automated notification from the bugs tracker
of the project: Savane.
/**************************************************************************/
[bugs #694] Latest Modifications:
Changes by:
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
'Date:
dim 19.09.2004 à 15:57 (Europe/Paris)
What | Removed | Added
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category | Web Frontend | Web Frontend: Trackers
Resolution | None | Fixed
Assigned to | None | yeupou
------------------ Additional Follow-up Comments ----------------------------
I'm afraid the database content for the fields planned_closed_date and
planned_begin_date (not sure about the exact name of the field) as been stored
date+1month+1day.
I'm going to update gna to test it. If so, I'll have to write an update script
that will update the appropriate fields.
/**************************************************************************/
[bugs #694] Full Item Snapshot:
URL: <http://gna.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=694>
Project: Savane
Submitted by: Paul Pogonyshev
On: dim 12.09.2004 à 13:50
Category: Web Frontend: Trackers
Severity: 1 - Trivial
Priority: B - Low
Resolution: Fixed
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: yeupou
Status: Open
Release:
Planned Release:
Summary: Off by one error in searching bugs by date
Original Submission: When searching for bugs by date, Savane searches one
month earlier than requested. This is apparently because months are numbered
0--11 instead of 1--12 in the query form <option> tags.
Commentaires
------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: dim 19.09.2004 à 15:57 By: Mathieu Roy <yeupou>
I'm afraid the database content for the fields planned_closed_date and
planned_begin_date (not sure about the exact name of the field) as been stored
date+1month+1day.
I'm going to update gna to test it. If so, I'll have to write an update script
that will update the appropriate fields.
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: dim 19.09.2004 à 14:34 By: Mathieu Roy <yeupou>
If I remember well, it was on purpose that monthes got numbered from 0 to 11
(unix timestamp related functions number month from 0 to 11, where 0 is January
and 11 december). I have to check why it goes wrong now.
CC List
-------
CC Address | Comment
------------------------------------+-----------------------------
loic | submitted a support request related to it
For detailed info, follow this link:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=694>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
