feat: add new isDate() validator by mum-never-proud · Pull Request #1270 · validatorjs/validator.js

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-22T04:01:51Z

Resolves#1130

profnandaa

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the project! 🎉 See my comments below.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:22:23Z

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
-function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }
+function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) || _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) || _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) || _nonIterableRest(); }


Remove this file from the diff since it's unrelated to the PR.

this was auto-generated

Just remove it before committing. This is because of the difference in the build system.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T13:29:16Z

+ '2015-07-15T07:00:00+0000',
+ ],
+ invalid: [
+ '',


Try add the following test cases:
2020-02-30, // invalid date 2019-02-29, // non-leap year 2020-04-31, // invalid date
I presume all those will pass as true (or fail as false). We will need to handle these cases.

Since:
> new Date('2020-02-31') 2020-03-02T00:00:00.000Z > new Date('2020-04-31') 2020-05-01T00:00:00.000Z

nice catch!
a simple validation would be
>newDate('2020-02-30').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2019-02-29').getUTCDate()1>newDate('2020-02-29').getUTCDate()29
we can compare it with the date supplied
~~the problem here is with the date format some may give as YYYY-MM-DD or MM-DD-YYYY~~
we can do that! my bad
~~any suggestion?~~
any better way ?

I'd not thought of that way, I think I like it! 👍

hmm looks like there are many edge cases to be considered in this case,
what if a user supplies
MM-DD-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
MM-DD-YY
we need to keep things simple and general
any suggestion?

Sure, for now let's just support those that are supported by Date(), and strictly YYYY. Need to add that note on the README.
However, I noticed something else, look at this?
> new Date('02-02-2019') 2019-02-01T21:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 1 > new Date('2019-02-02') 2019-02-02T00:00:00.000Z // .getUTCDate() = 2
Perhaps this are some of the intricacies that led to deprecating the first isDate() from the library. 🤔
What if we allowed the user to supply the format from a list of predefined formats?
MM-DD-YYYY DD-MM-YYYY YYYY-MM-DD
Then transform this to a YYYY-MM-DD format before running it through new Date()

check out the fiddle
https://jsfiddle.net/hvrwp07e/1/
I have done some tweaking, I have some stuff to do so right now I don't have time to think about edge cases
feel free to introduce some edge case or enhance the code
let me know if you are aware of any edge cases

Looking forward to that we can do more addition on edge cases in the future and update the readme accordingly.

profnandaa · 2020-03-22T18:34:30Z

/cc. @tux-tn @ezkemboi -- your thoughts?

ezkemboi · 2020-03-22T19:08:48Z

I will check on this @profnandaa.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T06:00:16Z

I have made the necessary changes to support almost all the format and handling leap years, invalid dates, etc

I have added a few more test cases, let me know if we need more test cases

have a look and let me know for any further changes!

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.

Thanks for the efforts so far.

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T19:59:50Z

+ return new Date(`${dateObj.m}/${dateObj.d}/${dateObj.y}`).getDate() === +dateObj.d;
+ }
+
+ return Object.prototype.toString.call(input) === '[object Date]' && isFinite(input);


What this last call for? The assumption is that input will always be a string. You need to call assertString() at the top of the function...

profnandaa · 2020-03-26T20:02:37Z

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+function isValidFormat(format) {
+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);


I'd thought we'll come up with multiple regex depending with the format provided, starting with YYYY/MM/DD as a default.
We said we'll keep it simple as just date string only, nothing else.

mum-never-proud · 2020-03-26T23:36:52Z

Suggesting a rework to simplify, let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks for the efforts so far.

agreed that the regex part might seem complicated but its quite simple, I guess it's better to support all format with a little effort

let me break down this code into simple chunks

isDate supported argument types

object: check if the object type is Date
string: if string proceed with below steps

functionisValidFormat(format){return/(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);}

this part checks for the following patterns

YYYY-MM-DD
YY-MM-DD
YYYY-M-D
YY-M-D
MM-DD-YYYY
MM-DD-YY
M-D-YYYY
M-D-YY
DD-MM-YYYY
DD-MM-YY
D-M-YYYY
D-M-YY

functionzip(x,y){constzippedArr=[],len=Math.min(x.length,y.length);leti=0;for(;i<len;i++){zippedArr.push([x[i],y[i]]);}returnzippedArr;}

the above one just zips two arrays into one, for example, consider the input as 07/15/2002 and format as MM/DD/YYYY

splitting the above inputs [\/-] will yield two arrays

zipping them will yield this

['MM', '07']
['DD', '15']
['YYYY', '2002']

after zipping the arrays in this part

for(const[dateWord,formatWord]ofdateAndFormat){if(dateWord.length!==formatWord.length){returnfalse;}dateObj[formatWord.charAt(0)]=dateWord;}

we just check for length equality for eg. 'MM'.length === '07'.length if not we return false else we store in an object with first character of format

obj[d] = 15, obj[m] = 7, obj[y] = 2002

then we init the date and check for validity by getting the date and the original input if both dates are same it is a valid date else nope

let me know if anything is unclear, I hope this should work for almost all of the cases you can also refer the test cases

cc: @profnandaa

profnandaa · 2020-03-28T08:21:59Z

@mum-never-proud -- ok, sounds good. Thanks!

profnandaa

LGTM.

More review from @tux-tn and @ezkemboi then we land. Thanks for your contrib! 🎉

profnandaa · 2020-04-01T08:50:35Z

@ezkemboi -- ping

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T09:17:49Z

Doing the review @profnandaa. I was held up by some work here.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:01:51Z

+ validator: 'isDate',
+ valid: [
+ new Date(),
+ new Date([2014, 2, 15]),


This means we allow users to send created dates using the new Date() method?
I thought, we just need to pass a string. But, it is a good idea.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:07:24Z

+ return /(^(y{4}|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);
+}
+
+function zip(x, y) {


Also, I would prefer if we make use of something like
functionzip(date,format){}
Use of x, y a little bit makes the code harder to read.

ezkemboi · 2020-04-01T10:10:31Z

+ len = Math.min(x.length, y.length);
+ let i = 0;
+
+ for (; i < len; i++) {


for(leti=0;i<len;i++){}
Might seem better than let i = 0 and use ; to make separation.

profnandaa · 2020-04-05T20:51:37Z

@mum-never-proud -- ^

mum-never-proud · 2020-04-06T05:26:42Z

@profnandaa sorry was busy, I will update the changes in few hours!

pavan-shipmnts · 2020-05-28T06:10:43Z

When is this releasing?

profnandaa · 2020-05-28T10:03:03Z

Most likey by end of May or 1st half of June.

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 22, 2020 09:30

add support for isDate
2f76d92

added files
5583076

update readme
656cc97

profnandaa requested changes Mar 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa changed the title ~~add support for is date~~feat: add new isDate() validatorMar 22, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2020
IsDate String Validation #1170
Closed

mum-never-proud added 3 commits March 26, 2020 11:13

added date format support and handling edge cases
47d3edc

update readme
6cd63d9

revert isEmail changes
f82011f

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 09:21

profnandaa reviewed Mar 26, 2020
View reviewed changes

mum-never-proud requested a review from profnandaa March 26, 2020 23:54

profnandaa approved these changes Mar 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa added the needs-more-review label Mar 28, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020
isDate() #1130
Closed

ezkemboi reviewed Apr 1, 2020
View reviewed changes

review changes
4a8f8db

profnandaa approved these changes Apr 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

profnandaa merged commit ff11844 into validatorjs:masterApr 6, 2020

profnandaa mentioned this pull request May 19, 2020
isDate() is not a function #1304
Closed

tux-tn mentioned this pull request Aug 8, 2020
refactor(isDate): add strictMode and prevent mixed delimiters #1402
Merged
3 tasks

		@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
		function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) \|\| _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) \|\| _nonIterableRest(); }
		function _slicedToArray(arr, i) { return _arrayWithHoles(arr) \|\| _iterableToArrayLimit(arr, i) \|\| _unsupportedIterableToArray(arr, i) \|\| _nonIterableRest(); }

		@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
		function isValidFormat(format) {
		return /(^(y{4}\|y{2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})$)\|(^(m{1,2})[\/-](d{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}\|y{2})$))\|(^(d{1,2})[\/-](m{1,2})[\/-]((y{4}\|y{2})$))/gi.test(format);

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

mum-never-proud commented Mar 22, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

profnandaa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

profnandaaMar 22, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mum-never-proudMar 22, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

profnandaaMar 22, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mum-never-proudMar 23, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

profnandaa commented Mar 22, 2020

Uh oh!

ezkemboi commented Mar 22, 2020

Uh oh!

mum-never-proud commented Mar 26, 2020

Uh oh!

profnandaa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mum-never-proud commented Mar 26, 2020• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

profnandaa commented Mar 28, 2020

Uh oh!

profnandaa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

profnandaa commented Apr 1, 2020

Uh oh!

ezkemboi commented Apr 1, 2020

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

profnandaa commented Apr 5, 2020

Uh oh!

mum-never-proud commented Apr 6, 2020

Uh oh!

pavan-shipmnts commented May 28, 2020

Uh oh!

profnandaa commented May 28, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

mum-never-proud commented Mar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

profnandaaMar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

mum-never-proudMar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

profnandaaMar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

mum-never-proudMar 23, 2020•
edited
Loading

mum-never-proud commented Mar 26, 2020•
edited
Loading

mum-never-proud commented Mar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

profnandaaMar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

mum-never-proudMar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

profnandaaMar 22, 2020•
edited
Loading

mum-never-proudMar 23, 2020•
edited
Loading