gh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. #116179
+37
−6
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
…datetime. Every four years people encounter this because it just isn't obvious. This moves the footnote up to a note with a code example. We'd love to change the default year value for datetime but doing that could have other consequences for existing code. This documented workaround *always* works.
itamaro
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2024
1 task
Member
|
Perhaps this should be only merged to the backport branches, not main. |
pganssle
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2024
Contributor
|
@gpshead Looks like this may need some tidying up if you are still interested. |
Member
|
This has already been partially implemented (the smaller note) do we still want to add the larger note since its deprecated anyway? |
gpshead
added
needs backport to 3.12
gpshead
commented
Mar 21, 2025
gpshead
added
needs backport to 3.13
|
Thanks @gpshead for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
…datetime. (pythonGH-116179) * pythongh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. Every four years people encounter this because it just isn't obvious. This moves the footnote up to a note with a code example. We'd love to change the default year value for datetime but doing that could have other consequences for existing code. This documented workaround *always* works. * doctest code within note is bad, dedent. * Update to match the error message. * remove no longer referenced footnote * ignore the warning in the doctest * use Petr's suggestion for the docs to hide the warning processing * cover date.strptime (3.14) as well (cherry picked from commit b8d3fddba6e96e693ced0d3b8f6ddbd61428fd32) Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <68491+gpshead@users.noreply.github.com>
|
GH-143037 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
Member
Author
|
I realize we may simplify the text around this when we actually do the deprecation behavior change (which we could choose to do now that we're 3.15 though it's nicer to wait longer). But having the detail in the docs and the backport to the stable docs still seems good so I fixed this up. a backport to 3.13 docs will need to be manual due to the added method in 3.14. |
gpshead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
… datetime. (GH-116179) (#143037) gh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. (GH-116179) * gh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. Every four years people encounter this because it just isn't obvious. This moves the footnote up to a note with a code example. We'd love to change the default year value for datetime but doing that could have other consequences for existing code. This documented workaround *always* works. * doctest code within note is bad, dedent. * Update to match the error message. * remove no longer referenced footnote * ignore the warning in the doctest * use Petr's suggestion for the docs to hide the warning processing * cover date.strptime (3.14) as well (cherry picked from commit b8d3fdd) Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <68491+gpshead@users.noreply.github.com>
gpshead
added a commit
to gpshead/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
…datetime. (pythonGH-116179) * pythongh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. Every four years people encounter this because it just isn't obvious. This moves the footnote up to a note with a code example. We'd love to change the default year value for datetime but doing that could have other consequences for existing code. This documented workaround *always* works. * doctest code within note is bad, dedent. * Update to match the error message. * remove no longer referenced footnote * ignore the warning in the doctest * use Petr's suggestion for the docs to hide the warning processing * cover date.strptime (3.14) as well
|
GH-143038 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
gpshead
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
… datetime. (GH-116179) (#143038) * gh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. (GH-116179) * gh-70647: Better promote how to safely parse yearless dates in datetime. Every four years people encounter this because it just isn't obvious. This moves the footnote up to a note with a code example. We'd love to change the default year value for datetime but doing that could have other consequences for existing code. This documented workaround *always* works. * doctest code within note is bad, dedent. * Update to match the error message. * remove no longer referenced footnote * ignore the warning in the doctest * use Petr's suggestion for the docs to hide the warning processing * cover date.strptime (3.14) as well * remove date.strptime mentions from 3.14
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 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.
Every four years people encounter this in part because it just isn't obvious that partial incomplete date parsing is not what
datetime.strptimeis designed for. This moves the footnote up to a more explanatory inline note with a code example.We'd love the default year value for datetime to be different, but changing that could have other consequences for existing code. This documented workaround always works.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--116179.org.readthedocs.build/