[GH-ISSUE #343] Confirm/clarify sent_timestamp placeholder being POST-ed #247

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-28 01:23:51 +03:00 by kerem · 4 comments

kerem commented

2026-02-28 01:23:51 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @siddhartham-ysg on GitHub (Oct 29, 2015).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/ushahidi/SMSSync/issues/343

The developer docs say this about sent_timestamp:

sent_timestamp -- the timestamp the SMS was sent. In the UNIX timestamp format

What was expected is that: that this is the unix time-stamp when the SMS was received, however as it happens to be the time-stamp is when the SMS is being relayed to or POST-ed to an URL/I for the application I am building?

What should be the expected/appropriate behaviour? Is what i am facing appropriate behaviour?

Originally created by @siddhartham-ysg on GitHub (Oct 29, 2015). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/ushahidi/SMSSync/issues/343 The developer docs say this about _sent_timestamp_: > sent_timestamp -- the timestamp the SMS was sent. In the UNIX timestamp format What was expected is that: that this is the unix time-stamp when the SMS was received, however as it happens to be the time-stamp is when the SMS is being relayed to or POST-ed to an URL/I for the application I am building? What should be the expected/appropriate behaviour? Is what i am facing appropriate behaviour?

kerem

2026-02-28 01:23:51 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
Question
label

kerem commented

2026-02-28 01:23:52 +03:00

Author

Owner

@eyedol commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015):

@siddhartham-ysg It's the timestamp when the SMS was sent to the phone. In other words when it was received. The timestamp is not when it was posted to the server.

@eyedol commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015): @siddhartham-ysg It's the timestamp when the SMS was sent to the phone. In other words when it was received. The timestamp is not when it was posted to the server.

kerem commented

2026-02-28 01:23:52 +03:00

Author

Owner

@siddhartham-ysg commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015):

@eyedol thanks for clarifying!

@siddhartham-ysg commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015): @eyedol thanks for clarifying!

kerem commented

2026-02-28 01:23:52 +03:00

Author

Owner

@eyedol commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015):

@siddhartham-ysg 👍 Let me know if it's showing otherwise.

@eyedol commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015): @siddhartham-ysg :+1: Let me know if it's showing otherwise.

kerem commented

2026-02-28 01:23:52 +03:00

Author

Owner

@siddhartham-ysg commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015):

@eyedol In the past few weeks certain circumstances we were inclined to infer this, it could really be an observational anomaly; today we checked the behaviour again and it worked out as you have mentioned.

@siddhartham-ysg commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2015): @eyedol In the past few weeks certain circumstances we were inclined to infer this, it could really be an observational anomaly; today we checked the behaviour again and it worked out as you have mentioned.