[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5538?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mihai Budiu updated CALCITE-5538:
---------------------------------
Description:
The root cause is that the TimestampString constructor validates a string
argument with the following regular expression:
??"[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]{-}[0-9][0-9]{-}[0-9][0-9]"
+ " "
+ "[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9](.[0-9]*[1-9])?"??
Unfortunately this rejects perfectly legal timestamp strings such as
"2023-02-21 10:10:10.000".
The fix is trivial, if we agree that this is a bug. Is there a deeper reason
for this validation?
There seem to be no unit tests for this TimestampString constructor.
was:
The TimestampString constructor validates a string argument with the following
regular expression: "[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]"
+ " "
+ "[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9](\\.[0-9]*[1-9])?"
Unfortunately this rejects perfectly legal timestamp strings such as
"2023-02-21 10:10:10.000".
The fix is trivial, if we agree that this is a bug. Is there a deeper reason
for this validation?
There seem to be no unit tests for this TimestampString constructor.
Summary: SQL parser rejects timestamp literals that end with 0 after
the period (was: Calcite rejects timestamp literals that end with 0 after the
period)
> SQL parser rejects timestamp literals that end with 0 after the period
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-5538
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-5538
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Affects Versions: 1.33.0
> Reporter: Mihai Budiu
> Priority: Trivial
>
> The root cause is that the TimestampString constructor validates a string
> argument with the following regular expression:
> ??"[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]{-}[0-9][0-9]{-}[0-9][0-9]"
> + " "
> + "[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9](.[0-9]*[1-9])?"??
> Unfortunately this rejects perfectly legal timestamp strings such as
> "2023-02-21 10:10:10.000".
> The fix is trivial, if we agree that this is a bug. Is there a deeper reason
> for this validation?
> There seem to be no unit tests for this TimestampString constructor.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
