Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
I am not sure I am a fan of the API here, because this really is not a property of the DateTime (which manifests in the fact that you have to make sure to remove it on setZone, etc.). |
Contributor
Author
|
I agree it's more like metadata for the factory process than a property of the datetime but there isn't a great way to signal that unless we return more complicated objects from those factory functions. Which doesn't seem reasonable. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
When you create a DateTime on a hole (i.e. a local time that does not exist), Luxon detects that and bumps it forward. The issue is that we never tell the user we did this. This PR adds a
wasHoleproperty to the DateTime to signal that's what happened.