[Bug] worktree prune --expires

Hi Team,

This is pretty much just a quibble, but the command parser for worktree prune --expires should really report when a timestamp is invalid. For example:

worktree prune --expires A:30 actually

actually appears to process the prune going back a very long time instead of reporting that A:30 isn't a good timestamp.

Experienced using git 2.29.2 in Cygwin - not my usual space and git 2.31.0 on NonStop.

I suspect that this should use the same timestamp parse as for other commands, although I also noticed that git log --since accepts the same syntactically awkward time. Am I missing something?

Thanks, Randall

-- Brief whoami:
 NonStop developer since approximately 211288444200000000
 UNIX developer since approximately 421664400
-- In my real life, I talk too much.

"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:

Assuming that you had "git" in front, and spelled "--expire" without the extra 's':

$ git worktree prune --expire no.such.date fatal: malformed expiration date 'no.such.date'

So apparently, "A:30" is taken as a expiration date that is not malformed.

$ git rev-parse --since=A:30 --until=now --max-age=1617138312 --min-age=1617138312

Appears to show that A:30 is interpreted as the same as 'now', but thta is an unlucky coincidence of the day.

What happens in this case is that "A:" is discarded as cruft (just like dots are discarded in "git log --since=8.days.ago"), and only the "30" takes effect of filling an unspecified "date of the month" [*1*]. And then the remainder is taken from the wallclock time, and that is how the above "rev-parse" shows the same for A:30 and now, as it is the 30th of the month for me right now.

$ git rev-parse --since=A:31 --until=now --max-age=1617224881 --min-age=1617138481

gives me the same time tomorrow (for the same reason that today's 30th for me).

[Footnote]

*1* In A:30, there is no "date of month", "month", "year", etc. specified, so we start from all unspecified, take the first number that is discovered (i.e. 30) and fill "date of the month" with it.

On March 30, 2021 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

extra

Yes, it was. I just transcribed it badly.

an

dots are

of

is

so

(i.e. 30)

Well, sounds a bit like an elbow test situation. The question is, what to do about it, if anything, I suppose. I didn't even put the "30" in context while testing. Oops.