Skip to content
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

Failed Jobs date format can be ambiguous #526

Closed
jonnywilliamson opened this issue Feb 27, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Failed Jobs date format can be ambiguous #526

jonnywilliamson opened this issue Feb 27, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@jonnywilliamson
Copy link

jonnywilliamson commented Feb 27, 2019

The column that shows the date for failed jobs (and also some other locations in the app) is sometimes ambiguous.

For example, lets assume it's January 2020. You have an app that doesn't get many failed jobs. But when you look at the table in mid January look you see this:

image

On first glance it's hard to know if this job failed on 19th Jan 2020 or 20th Jan 2019.

Having a 2 digit number for the year is not enough IMO.

I see this this format is forced in the following method:

readableTimestamp(timestamp){
return this.formatDate(timestamp).format('YY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss');
},

Would a PR be accepted to change this to YYYY instead?

Thanks.

@travisaustin
Copy link

travisaustin commented Feb 27, 2019

@jonnywilliamson, If you submit a PR, would you add a config option that supports editing the default format, instead of hard-coding a format? This would allow a user to define a relative format, or add a day of the week, etc.

@driesvints
Copy link
Member

Feel free to send in a PR.

@driesvints
Copy link
Member

I feel like a user defined format would be a little overkill in terms of customization. Let's just keep it at making it the full year now.

@jonnywilliamson
Copy link
Author

Thanks! This was done before I got back from my trip. Much appreciated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants