Show torrent fields: creation_date, created_by, encoding

[mario-nt]

Resolves #278.

[mario-nt]

@josecelano Rebased and CI OK

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt,

• I would move the comment to the function. If you think the name is not enough, you could change the name to epochTimeToHumanReadableUTC or timestampToHumanReadableUTC
• Timestamp is in seconds (props.torrent.creation_date), not milliseconds. The Date constructor accepts milliseconds (new Date(date * 1000);). We are passing seconds to the function.

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt since we are using TypeScript maybe we can introduce a new Timestamp type to make it explicit what the function needs.

[josecelano]

I was using snake_case for JS functions and I guess also for filenames because they all start with a lowercase:

• sanitizer.ts
• slug.ts

[josecelano]

It would be good to add a unit test for the function but it's a pain to add unit tests with Nuxt.

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt since we are using TypeScript maybe we can introduce a new Timestamp type to make it explicit what the function needs.

Maybe something like:

type Timestamp = number;

export function epochToUtc (timestamp: Timestamp) {
  new Date(timestamp.toMilliseconds()).toDateString();
}

But you can even use a field and check that the number is an integer.

[josecelano]

This is how the detail page looks with the new fields:

[mario-nt]

@josecelano Ready for review.

[mario-nt]

@josecelano Ready for review.

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt maybe inside the components we could use a wrapper helper with the name formatDateFromTimestamp.

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt I think we should use a format for comments like https://tsdoc.org/ but we can enforce that after installing MegaLinter.

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt I think this line is never reached. If I'm not wrong miliseconds would be Infinity but ti will not throw an exception.

// Online Javascript Editor for free
// Write, Edit and Run your Javascript code using JS Online Compiler

let seconds = Number.MAX_VALUE;

let miliseconds = seconds * 1000;
console.log("test1: ", miliseconds); // Infinity

try {
  milliseconds = seconds * 1000;
} catch (error) {
  console.log("error", error);
}
console.log("test2: ", miliseconds); // Infinity

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt In general I prefer positive conditional:

  return isNaN(convertedDate.valueOf())
    ? new InvalidDateError(
        `Could not create a valid date from ${milliseconds}`
      )
    : convertedDate.toDateString();

See https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/350474/430081

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt I think the <Date function does not thorw any exception:

let seconds = Number.MAX_VALUE;

let miliseconds = seconds * 1000;
console.log("test1: ", miliseconds); // Infinity

try {
  milliseconds = seconds * 1000;
} catch (error) {
  console.log("overflow error", error);
}
console.log("test2: ", miliseconds); // Infinity

try {
  convertedDate = new Date(seconds * 1000);
} catch (error) {
  console.log("Date error", error);
}
console.log("test3: ", convertedDate); // Infinity

[josecelano]

Some tests I did:

let seconds = Number.MAX_VALUE;

let miliseconds = seconds * 1000;
console.log("test1: ", miliseconds); // Infinity

try {
  milliseconds = seconds * 1000;
} catch (error) {
  console.log("overflow error", error);
}
console.log("test2: ", miliseconds); // Infinity

try {
  convertedDate = new Date(seconds * 1000);
} catch (error) {
  console.log("Date error", error);
}
console.log("test3: ", convertedDate); // Invalid Date

convertedDate = new Date(1701688171 * 1000);
console.log("test4: ", convertedDate);
console.log("test5: ", convertedDate.toISOString());
console.log("test6: ", convertedDate.toUTCString());

[josecelano]

Hi @mario-nt I've just created another example.

Why do you want to differentiate between an invalid timestamp in the database and a timestamp greater than the maximum Date? Now we are showing the value causing the error so we can find out later what happened.

[mario-nt]

@josecelano Changes applied.

[josecelano]

@josecelano Changes applied.

Hi @mario-nt it looks good but it needs to be rebased.

[mario-nt]

@josecelano Rebased.

[josecelano]

ACK 4281526