Hi,
If I use rbf_formatDate(d, 'yyyy-MMM-dd hh:ss') to format a date . The date returned is "2014-0909-26 hh:ss" but if I use rbv_api.formatDate(d, "yyyy-MMM-dd hh:ss"); to format a date. The date returned is "2014-Sep-26 11:03" which is the expected value.
Is there a bug in rbf_formatDate(d, 'yyyy-MMM-dd hh:ss') ?
Thanks,
Naresh
I can confirm that the implementation will not work for a pattern which contains 'MMM', 'hh' & 'ss' but to confirm if this is a bug, we may have to refer to the API's documentation. Does it say that these patterns are supported?
if the pattern works for rbv_api.formatDate then it shoud work for rbf_formatDate also. And the api documentation says "Pattern uses the same conventions as Java SimpleDateFormat class."
Agreed. Just wanted to confirm if there were initial discussions made with regards to the formats supported by this API. Nonetheless, I have put in an issue PSC00315336 for 4.0.0 to make these two API's consistent.
-Thanks
Hi Naresh,
Just one question - Could you point me to the documentation which says "Pattern uses the same conventions as Java SimpleDateFormat class."
-Thanks
Please check this:
the link you gave points to rbv_api.formatDate... my point is does it say anywhere that rbf_formatDate should support SimpleDateformat..? (I do not believe it does).
I am working on fixing this issue anyway but would like to make sure that I am not missing anything.
-Thanks
Client-side API is implemented on JavaScript and has no knowledge of Java classes. For that reason it may behave differently from similar server-side API.
Well, yes.. that was exactly my point. But, since we are on this now, it would be better to make an attempt to get them in sync.