[rt-users] Date Custom Field in RT 4

[Kevin Falcone]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:02:58PM -0700, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>    That's odd. I use Emmanuel Lacour's code for 3.8 and I don't have this problem. My users can

Kenn, the 3.8 date custom field patch and the 4.0 datetime custom
field types have very little in common.

In fact, there really isn't an upgrade path between the two due to the
various bugs in the patch and general improvements in Custom Fields in
4.0

-kevin

>    enter "2011/11/25" or "20/22/2011" or pick a date from the Calendar pop-up and it is always
>    interpreted correctly into our preferenced format of yyyy-mm-dd. DId you set a default date
>    format preference in your configurations? Ours drops the time element (since we really don't
>    care what time something was done).
> 
>    Kenn
>    LBNL
> 
>    On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Wayne Thursby <[1]wayne.thursby at hcmeinc.com> wrote:
> 
>      The date custom field is a welcomed addition, and opens up a lot of possibilities.
>      Everything works great, but I've noticed one assumption it makes that is, at least in my
>      case, an incorrect one.
> 
>      Instead of selecting dates from calendars, my users type in dates manually. I am in America,
>      so this follows the (admittedly silly) format of "MM/DD/YY"
> 
>      If the users manually type in a date such as the 25th of August, 2010 as "8/25/10", the date
>      is correctly interpreted by the custom field.
> 
>      However, when a more ambiguous date is entered, such as the 9th of August, 2010, the date is
>      incorrectly parsed as being in the international (and more rational) format of "DD/MM/YY".
>      This turns the user's intended input, "8/9/10" into meaning the 8th of September, 2010.
> 
>      Computers are typically easier to configure than users. Is the default format for date
>      CustomFields configurable? If not, should I file a feature request?
>      Wayne Thursby
>      System Administrator
>      Healthcare Management Enterprises, Inc.
> 
> References
> 
>    Visible links
>    1. mailto:wayne.thursby at hcmeinc.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20110517/ea260813/attachment.sig>