Class-validator: isDateString does not follow ISO-8601 ?

[jacktuck]

Date strings with negative TZ offsets are not considered valid with current regex

Think it's missing negative offsets and handling single-digit hours
2016-07-16T19:20:30+5:30 no match
2016-07-16T19:20:30+05:30 match

2019-09-03T20:16:24-01:00 no match
2019-09-03T20:16:24+01:00 match

I think they should all match as valid iso strings, not too sure
Current regex testing those strings - https://regex101.com/r/RzcfrV/2/

Hapijs's joi (2.5M weekly downloads) is using the following regex

^(?:[-+]\d{2})?(?:\d{4}(?!\d{2}\b))(?:(-?)(?:(?:0[1-9]|1[0-2])(?:\1(?:[12]\d|0[1-9]|3[01]))?|W(?:[0-4]\d|5[0-2])(?:-?[1-7])?|(?:00[1-9]|0[1-9]\d|[12]\d{2}|3(?:[0-5]\d|6[1-6])))(?![T]$|[T][\d]+Z$)(?:[T\s](?:(?:(?:[01]\d|2[0-3])(?:(:?)[0-5]\d)?|24\:?00)(?:[.,]\d+(?!:))?)(?:\2[0-5]\d(?:[.,]\d+)?)?(?:[Z]|(?:[+-])(?:[01]\d|2[0-3])(?::?[0-5]\d)?)?)?)?$

https://github.com/hapijs/joi/blob/e3e7626b39625c38a71f3b06665142ec0a29bac6/lib/common.js#L13
https://regex101.com/r/99Uj49/1/

Happy to make a PR to switch to Hapi's regex if it's correct.

[vlapo]

Hi @jacktuck,

We are open to PR with fix and of course do not forget tests.

[rubiin]

@vlapo however validatorjs seems to have another regex https://github.com/validatorjs/validator.js/blob/master/src/lib/isISO8601.js

[vlapo]

So why we have isDateString and also isISO8601 validators? :) Looks like isDateString should be just alias for isISO8601. @rubiin thnx for the point us to this.

@jacktuck what do you think?

[jacktuck]

@vlapo I must have missed the isISO8601 validator. Agree that isDateString should be an alias for isISO8601. Unless there is some important distinction that mean we'd want both.

[rubiin]

Assumming the regex applied, both of them seem to be different. However we can still use the validatorjs's regex on isdatestring @vlapo

[joseym]

Currently unable to get dates to validate with either isDateString and IsISO8601

[vlapo]

Okey after small research I think we have some duplicity and missing functionality/lack of docs.

• isDateString validator should be "alias" for isISO8601 not some kind of magic regexp in our codebase - looks like merging https://github.com/typestack/class-validator/pull/88 was not a good idea. But I think we should keep this alias as it is more suggestive validator name than isISO8601
• isISO8601 accepts also "only date string" inputs as 2019-04-04 - https://github.com/typestack/class-validator/issues/407
• we have missing strict option parameter in isISO8601
• we should introduce isRFC3339 validator as RFC3339 is also date format standard - validatorjs
• we should improve our docs

[ihorTymofieiev]

Merging #88 was a really not a good idea(

Issues for isDateString:

• "2019-18-13T22:14:14.761Z", because we can use any month in the range from 0 to 19
• "2019-12-39T22:14:14.761Z", because we can use any day in the range from 0 to 39
• "2019-12-31T29:14:14.761Z", because we can use any hour in the range from 0 to 29

I think we can fix the isDateString validator and the isISO8601 validator for a start.
And we will make some update for support "only date string" inputs as "2019-04-04" after solving https://github.com/validatorjs/validator.js/issues/1130

We have the IsISO8601 decorator, now. I think using isDateString and isISO8601 alias for the same functionality is not a good idea. What about you? @vlapo @rubiin

[cjancsar]

@ihorTymofieiev none of these date validators seem to currently work with actual ISO8601 strings. Is there any PR that can be merged to resolve this? Or can I assist somehow? Dates are pretty much broken right now,

[ihorTymofieiev]

@cjancsar, recent changes with fix this validator are not yet available as the npm package.

@vlapo

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.