You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Look at "locked_at" timestamps. When lock it just created, Gitea returns timestamp with nanosecond precision: 2019-08-14T20:49:21.392551447Z. But when I am listing locks later, timestamp only has second precision: 2019-08-14T20:49:21Z
Expected: lock is always returned with same timestamp precision via LFS API. Also, LFS protocol spec clearly says that timestamp needs to have second precision.
P.S. If this bug came with code from lfs-test-server, please tell me so I open a bugreport there too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
slonopotamus
changed the title
LFS locks "locked_at" has inconsistent precision
LFS locks "locked_at": inconsistent precision + protocol violation
Aug 14, 2019
slonopotamus
changed the title
LFS locks "locked_at": inconsistent precision + protocol violation
LFS locks "locked_at": inconsistent precision + LFS spec violation
Aug 14, 2019
The problem seems to come from that list have timestamp based on stored in database and POST the lock details come from the object unaltered so with nanosecond precision.
The fix (in coming) is to adjust func (l *LFSLock) APIFormat() *api.LFSLock to fix the time precision.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
No (try.gitea.io is down), but I can reproduce it on https://gitea.com
Description
Look at "locked_at" timestamps. When lock it just created, Gitea returns timestamp with nanosecond precision:
2019-08-14T20:49:21.392551447Z
. But when I am listing locks later, timestamp only has second precision:2019-08-14T20:49:21Z
Expected: lock is always returned with same timestamp precision via LFS API. Also, LFS protocol spec clearly says that timestamp needs to have second precision.
P.S. If this bug came with code from lfs-test-server, please tell me so I open a bugreport there too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: