Skip to content

gh-126845: Some edge cases in email.utils.parsedate_to_datetime seem to differ from RFC2822 spec #134438

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

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

GGyll
Copy link
Contributor

@GGyll GGyll commented May 21, 2025

Continuation of PR #134350 which was mistakenly closed due to deleted local fork.

Regarding no.1 from #126845

Also added tests for different digit years and updated a test in test_email.py to correctly assert 1 digit years (03 is evaluated to 3)

Copy link
Member

@encukou encukou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This parses 0001 correctly, but breaks parsing of real two-digit years.

@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ def _parsedate_tz(data):
# calls for a two-digit yy, but RFC 2822 (which obsoletes RFC 822)
# mandates a 4-digit yy. For more information, see the documentation for
# the time module.
if yy < 100:
if len(str(yy)) >= 2 and yy < 100:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yy is now a number, so if yy < 100 (and it's positive), len(str(yy)) >= 2 is never true.
You need to keep the original year string for this check.

@@ -3227,7 +3227,7 @@ def test_parsedate_y2k(self):

"""
self.assertEqual(utils.parsedate_tz('25 Feb 03 13:47:26 -0800'),
utils.parsedate_tz('25 Feb 2003 13:47:26 -0800'))
utils.parsedate_tz('25 Feb 3 13:47:26 -0800'))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the test ineffective.

import unittest
from email.utils import parsedate_to_datetime

class ParsedateToDatetimeTest(unittest.TestCase):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

parsedate_to_datetime tests belong in test_utils in DateTimeTests. (Those tests could maybe use some refactoring, but let's ignore that ;)

def test(self):
expectations = {
"Sat, 15 Aug 0001 23:12:09 +0500": "0001",
"Thu, 1 Sep 1 23:12:09 +0800": "0001",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Logically when doing a Postel "be generous in what you accept" recovery here, a single digit year should be treated as if it were a two digit year, which means the result here should 2001, which is what the current code produces.

expectations = {
"Sat, 15 Aug 0001 23:12:09 +0500": "0001",
"Thu, 1 Sep 1 23:12:09 +0800": "0001",
"Thu, 7 Oct 123 23:12:09 +0500": "0123",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And this result should be 2023, per the rfc text you quoted (three digit years get 1900 added). I have no idea why that settled on that logic, it makes no sense to me, but that's what the RFC says.

"Thu, 1 Sep 1 23:12:09 +0800": "0001",
"Thu, 7 Oct 123 23:12:09 +0500": "0123",
}
for input_string, output_string in expectations.items():
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

subTest would be good here.

@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented Jun 10, 2025

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants