[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2021-09-23 Thread Patrick Decat
Patrick Decat added the comment: pywin32 project has moved from sourceforge to github. https://sourceforge.net/p/pywin32/bugs/748/ is now at https://github.com/mhammond/pywin32/issues/748 pywin32 issue is supposed to be resolved since pywin32 b222 See: https://github.com/mhammond/pywin32/i

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-28 Thread Ned Deily
Ned Deily added the comment: FTR, there is now a pywin32 issue (opened by the OP) on this: https://sourceforge.net/p/pywin32/bugs/748/ -- nosy: +ned.deily ___ Python tracker __

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-28 Thread m-parry
m-parry added the comment: pywin32 is not my code. It is a ubiquitous Python library on Windows that cannot be used under Python 3.6.1. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-28 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: > Again, under <3.6.1, that was accepted. (And again, I am making no argument > about the validity of this code, just with regards to backwards > compatibility.) You are right that I modified the C API of datetime in Python 3.6.1 to make it stricter and rejec

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-28 Thread m-parry
m-parry added the comment: That's just a Python C API call. It looks like it eventually resolves to new_datetime_ex(30828, 9, 13, 3, 48, 5, 48, Py_None, PyDateTime_DateTimeType). We also have some internal code that sees a similar problem from calling PyTime_FromTime(), that was similarly

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-28 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: 2017-03-28 10:17 GMT+02:00 m-parry : > "I think it's the case that **some routes via the C API** now reject out of > range values that were previously permitted." > > The pywin32 repro I gave above eventually calls > PyDateTimeAPI->DateTime_FromDateAndTime(): >

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-28 Thread m-parry
m-parry added the comment: >From my opening comment (with new emphasis): "I think it's the case that **some routes via the C API** now reject out of range values that were previously permitted." The pywin32 repro I gave above eventually calls PyDateTimeAPI->DateTime_FromDateAndTime(): http:/

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-27 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: The range of valid timestamp is the same since the module was added to Python 2.3: >>> datetime.datetime.min datetime.datetime(1, 1, 1, 0, 0) >>> datetime.datetime.max datetime.datetime(, 12, 31, 23, 59, 59, 99) https://docs.python.org/2/library/dateti

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-27 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: > The change in issue #29100 - intended AFAICS simply to fix a regression in > 3.6 - seems to have made datetime validation via certain code paths stricter > than it was in 2.7 or 3.5. What do you mean by "stricter than 2.7 & 3.5"? The year 30828 was never val

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-27 Thread Xiang Zhang
Changes by Xiang Zhang : -- nosy: +haypo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.or

[issue29921] datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions

2017-03-27 Thread m-parry
New submission from m-parry: The change in issue #29100 - intended AFAICS simply to fix a regression in 3.6 - seems to have made datetime validation via certain code paths stricter than it was in 2.7 or 3.5. I think it's the case that some routes via the C API now reject out of range values th