Remove comment re: validation of datetime format strings. #17439
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
If anything the validation should go on the DateFormatter's side (so that things work even when not using the rcparams), and "valid datetime format string" is rather fuzzy anyways given that strftime just passes unsupported format codes through.
dstansby
approved these changes
May 18, 2020
timhoffm
approved these changes
May 18, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If anything the validation should go on the DateFormatter's side (so
that things work even when not using the rcparams), and "valid datetime
format string" is rather fuzzy anyways given that strftime just passes
unsupported format codes through.
PR Summary
PR Checklist