http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1978 ------- Comment #3 from joe.atzberger@liblime.com 2008-05-29 06:47 ------- At the current "strictness" of C4::Dates, a date like 00/00/0000 triggers warnings but is passed through. It is hypothesized that Dates may get stricter is later versions. The rest of the behavior you note, including the "rollover" of overloaded fields (like the 45th month equals month 9, +3 years) is a built-in component of POSIX::strftime, the underlying logic for Dates. So that doesn't worry me much. Perhaps we should check that the date specified, once used to create a C4::Dates object, has an ISO output that is later than "today". That would catch all the "00" cases. Note: alternatively, if Dates strictness was tightened, nothing else would have to be changed, and we'd get errors for all 3 ill-formed examples. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.