-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
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
Fix 464 #471
Fix 464 #471
Conversation
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3306964443
💛 - Coveralls |
DTSTART:19961230T020000Z | ||
DTEND:19961230T060000Z | ||
UID:rdate_period | ||
RDATE;VALUE=PERIOD:19970101T180000Z/19970102T070000Z,199709T180000Z/PT5H30M |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, the problem we have here is that one element in this list is actually ok and the other one is not. How can that be reflected?
Is it ok to skip the whole RDATE ... probably is for now. It should be rare to have an invalid rdate.
''' | ||
assert events.issue_464_invalid_rdate.is_broken | ||
assert ('RDATE', 'Expected period format, got: 199709T180000Z/PT5H30M') in events.issue_464_invalid_rdate.errors | ||
assert not b'RDATE:None' in events.issue_464_invalid_rdate.to_ical() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool! The test is alright.
Thanks! |
fix #464