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

DisambiguatePossibleEpochNanoseconds: GetOffsetNanosecondsFor called with ISO Date-Time Record #3010

Closed
anba opened this issue Oct 15, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3012
Closed
Assignees
Labels
editorial spec-text Specification text involved

Comments

@anba
Copy link
Contributor

anba commented Oct 15, 2024

DisambiguatePossibleEpochNanoseconds, steps 6-9:

  1. Let before be the latest possible ISO Date-Time Record for which CompareISODateTime(before, isoDateTime) = -1 and ! GetPossibleEpochNanoseconds(timeZone, before) is not empty.
  2. Let after be the earliest possible ISO Date-Time Record for which CompareISODateTime(after, isoDateTime) = 1 and ! GetPossibleEpochNanoseconds(timeZone, after) is not empty.
  3. Let offsetBefore be GetOffsetNanosecondsFor(timeZone, before).
  4. Let offsetAfter be GetOffsetNanosecondsFor(timeZone, after).

But GetOffsetNanosecondsFor expects a BigInt input.

@ptomato
Copy link
Collaborator

ptomato commented Oct 15, 2024

Thanks for catching! This is a regression from #2925 that fails a type assertion, so I'm going to assume it doesn't need consensus to correct it.

@ptomato ptomato self-assigned this Oct 15, 2024
@ptomato ptomato added spec-text Specification text involved editorial labels Oct 15, 2024
ptomato added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 15, 2024
Regression from #2925. Wrong type passed to GetOffsetNanosecondsFor; we
need the result of GetPossibleEpochNanoseconds from the preceding lines.

Closes: #3010
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial spec-text Specification text involved
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants