Skip to content

Conversation

mansona
Copy link
Member

@mansona mansona commented Sep 6, 2022

since the releaseDate needs to be parsable we shouldn't allow any releaseDate that isn't a date. The release date should be either null or a parsable date 👍

@@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ describe('FrontmatterLinter', function () {
'prs.accepted must be the URL for the original pull request on emberjs/rfcs, for example: https://github.com/emberjs/rfcs/pull/123',
'start-date must be a date formatted YYYY-MM-DD',
'teams must be a list of one or more Ember teams',
'release-date must be a date formatted YYYY-MM-DD',
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this correct though? On an early stage, do we want submitters of RFCs to see the message 'release-date must be a date formatted YYYY-MM-DD'? Because that is what this test is saying.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also noticing, pretty sure the messages are incorrect if we're now requiring iso dates.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants