Fix: Handle RFC3339 date format #122
Open
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
catch timestamp error and attempt to convert from isoformat
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes #82.
The JWT Standard defines the Numerical Date as either a Unix Epoch in seconds or a non-integer value from RFC3339 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519#section-2). Currently, passing a RFC3339 formatted date leads to a ValueError.
This Error gets caught and instead the date is parsed as ISO / RFC3339. If the date can also not be parsed as ISO, the script will still throw a value error.
Implementing further date parsing, for example for the date formats shown in #95 could be considered, but would not follow the standard.
Cheers, JM-Lemmi