gnucompatibility(date): +%f treated differently, gnu vs uu
Open
Beginner friendly
Nobody has claimed this yet.
U - date
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 24.1k
- Forks
- 2k
- Avg merge
- 1d 5h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 365
Description
Hi, uutils mainteners, i hope you doing well
I saw a divergence between gnu and uu
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
63213001
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
993492453
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
345293349
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
700997118
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
123982302
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
481038326
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
809741571
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ ./date +%f
145789226
relunsec@relunsec:~/software/coreutils/target/debug$ gnudate +%f
%f
That is the weird behavior of uu, everytime i get a random number, i want hear is it a feature or a weird problem?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reproducing the reported commands, comparing the uutils date output for +%f with gnudate +%f. Trace the date formatting implementation from the date command entry point and identify how the %f directive is handled. Done means the behavior is consistent with the intended GNU compatibility result and is covered by a regression test.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- cli
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 68/100