It occurs to me anyway, that being able to just use simpletime for single/partial myXXXXX payloads by having a set of tick boxes would be an enhancement for the node (default being all of course)
What do you think?
I'd do the work to acheive it and send your a PR if you approve the concept
Can I suggest that once your happy with the modification and have merged it into the main branch - you then create another new branch (I've already deleted my fork) and I'll fork that and then work out how add those options?
On another note - I could do with having a yymmdd option for writing stuff to my logging system(and therefore maybe there should be a yyyymmdd and a yyyy-mm-dd ones as well?)
And I'm contemplating asking for a hh:mm:ss.zzz one as well but only for completeness - I'm not sure I can fully justify it but I just think that maybe it should be there?
Merged into Master branch and a new tickboxes branch added.
I started off with the intentions of just providing the basic elements, with a view to any combination of the elements then being constructed using a template node, but a few combinations crept in....
However, I quickly realised that there are countless combinations of those elements, and potentially the node could become swamped with options as different users request different elements in different orders, some with hyphens, some with slashes, etd, so would prefer if possible to avoid, unless it's something which is a well used standard date/time format, or something that couldn't be easily constructed.
Does that make sense?
I'll accept just getting one variation added if I can
So, you have mytime hh:mm and mytimes hh:mm:ss but no equivalent yy-mm-dd type date - to get the date - you either have to concat 3 properties or (even worse) substring myrawdate and get the "wrong" date as myrawdate is not local DST corrected
So I think its a fundamental missing property
I'd vote for yymmdd personally (as its shortest I can use in logging) but happy to accept yy-mm-dd or yyyymmdd or yyyy-mm-dd if you accept the basic proposal
I'm a bit (more ) confused now - when I tried changing node version number in the branch I was using from 2.9.1 to 2.9.1_cymplecy , I then couldn't install it using npm install
Got a very wierd error that didn't make a lot sense (end of stream??? something wierd like that anyway)
When I changed it to 2.9.2 - I could then do an npm install
I haven't published it to npm yet, only committed it to the git repo.
You don't need to increment the package, as I will sort out the semantic version prior to publishing it.
The version number shouldn't affect your local installation, as I assume you are installing it from git, ie from my repo it would be as below, but you'll be using your repo.
cd .node-red
npm install Paul-Reed/node-red-contrib-simpletime#tickboxes
If you make a fork of the simpletime repo, you can then install it over the top of your existing simpletime node that you have already installed in your node-RED installation,
cd .node-red
npm install cymplecy/node-red-contrib-simpletime
It doesn't matter about the version, it will update it regardless.Then you make whatever changes you need locally.
If you later decide to create a PR, it doesn't matter if it's to the master or feature branch, as I can switch branches here.
When all the changes are in master, then I'll sort out the versioning and publish it to npm.
for compatibility - I think they should all be ticked so that same result as previous version
That's what I was aiming for
My testing technique obviously failed me so just developing a repeatable setup at moment that fails like what happened to you and then works when I've fixed it