[PR #548] [CLOSED] Parse Snapshot#timestamp with `fromtimestamp` #1219

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-01 14:48:54 +03:00 by kerem · 0 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-01 14:48:54 +03:00

Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/pull/548
Author: @mAAdhaTTah
Created: 11/23/2020
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: master ← Head: parse-timestamp-as-timestamp

📝 Commits (1)

efc62f7 Parse Snapshot#timestamp with fromtimestamp

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+2 additions, -1 deletions)

View changed files

📝 archivebox/core/models.py (+2 -1)

📄 Description

Since we know what this is supposed to be, we don't need to use the "best
guess" version from parse_date. Some values I was getting from the Pocket
API produced weird/inconsistent results.

Summary

I got some weird results with some timestamps from the Pocket API, which
could just be issues in Pocket's data, but as I was trying to solve them, I
realized we had this "best guess" approach for parsing a date, while we
know for sure this is a timestamp and could be parsed as one.

N/A but wondering if maybe bookmarked should be reified into the DB?
Would be helpful for the REST API, so we could sort by bookmarked.

Changes these areas

Bugfixes
Feature behavior
Command line interface
Configuration options
Internal architecture
Snapshot data layout on disk

_{🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.}

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/pull/548 **Author:** [@mAAdhaTTah](https://github.com/mAAdhaTTah) **Created:** 11/23/2020 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `master` ← **Head:** `parse-timestamp-as-timestamp` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`efc62f7`](https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/commit/efc62f739a6cc4fd76aec84bb48ae1988b9391d7) Parse Snapshot#timestamp with `fromtimestamp` ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+2 additions, -1 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `archivebox/core/models.py` (+2 -1) </details> ### 📄 Description Since we know what this is supposed to be, we don't need to use the "best guess" version from `parse_date`. Some values I was getting from the Pocket API produced weird/inconsistent results. # Summary I got some weird results with some timestamps from the Pocket API, which _could_ just be issues in Pocket's data, but as I was trying to solve them, I realized we had this "best guess" approach for parsing a date, while we know for sure this is a timestamp and could be parsed as one. # Related issues N/A but wondering if maybe `bookmarked` should be reified into the DB? Would be helpful for the REST API, so we could sort by bookmarked. # Changes these areas - [X] Bugfixes - [ ] Feature behavior - [ ] Command line interface - [ ] Configuration options - [ ] Internal architecture - [ ] Snapshot data layout on disk --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>