quark-trace that I pushed recently. It’ll create a /tmp/jenny.log file (it will get *large*). When you see duplicate twts, try to find them in that log.Reasons, in theory, why we could see dups:
1) jenny doesn’t detect your feed’s URL correctly.
2) python-dateutil doesn’t parse your twt’s timestamp correctly. Or rather, it parses it differently depending on some env vars? Cronjobs often have this pitfall where some env var is different than your normal environment.
Actually … I can’t think of anything else. 🤔 You don’t see dups *all the time*, it only happens for your *own* twts, and you said that the twt hash *mismatches*. That already narrows it down to something in make_twt_hash(). 🤔
Let’s see if that trace file helps. If it doesn’t, we can add more trace() calls.
quark-trace that I pushed recently. It’ll create a /tmp/jenny.log file (it will get *large*). When you see duplicate twts, try to find them in that log.Reasons, in theory, why we could see dups:
1) jenny doesn’t detect your feed’s URL correctly.
2) python-dateutil doesn’t parse your twt’s timestamp correctly. Or rather, it parses it differently depending on some env vars? Cronjobs often have this pitfall where some env var is different than your normal environment.
Actually … I can’t think of anything else. 🤔 You don’t see dups *all the time*, it only happens for your *own* twts, and you said that the twt hash *mismatches*. That already narrows it down to something in make_twt_hash(). 🤔
Let’s see if that trace file helps. If it doesn’t, we can add more trace() calls.
quark-trace that I pushed recently. It’ll create a /tmp/jenny.log file (it will get *large*). When you see duplicate twts, try to find them in that log.\n\nReasons, in theory, why we could see dups:\n\n1) jenny doesn’t detect your feed’s URL correctly.\n\n2) python-dateutil doesn’t parse your twt’s timestamp correctly. Or rather, it parses it differently depending on some env vars? Cronjobs often have this pitfall where some env var is different than your normal environment.\n\nActually … I can’t think of anything else. 🤔 You don’t see dups *all the time*, it only happens for your *own* twts, and you said that the twt hash *mismatches*. That already narrows it down to something in make_twt_hash(). 🤔\n\nLet’s see if that trace file helps. If it doesn’t, we can add more trace() calls.
quark-trace that I pushed recently. It’ll create a /tmp/jenny.log file (it will get *large*). When you see duplicate twts, try to find them in that log.Reasons, in theory, why we could see dups:
1) jenny doesn’t detect your feed’s URL correctly.
2) python-dateutil doesn’t parse your twt’s timestamp correctly. Or rather, it parses it differently depending on some env vars? Cronjobs often have this pitfall where some env var is different than your normal environment.
Actually … I can’t think of anything else. 🤔 You don’t see dups *all the time*, it only happens for your *own* twts, and you said that the twt hash *mismatches*. That already narrows it down to something in make_twt_hash(). 🤔
Let’s see if that trace file helps. If it doesn’t, we can add more trace() calls.
if twt_date.tzinfo is None: twt_date = twt_date.replace(tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc). I had to fix this in my implementation recently, too. Let me quickly provide a fix for the Python reference implementation in the spec.
time.RFC3339 timestamp look like with and without a TZ? Maybe this is what's causing @maya 's Twts to persist at the top of my feed for yarnd pod owners and users? 🤔
time.RFC3339 timestamp look like with and without a TZ? Maybe this is what's causing @maya 's Twts to persist at the top of my feed for yarnd pod owners and users? 🤔
time.Time objects (if I'm not mistaken it's impossible to have a timestamp without a timezone), Python does not.
-00:00 timezones throws off a parser? I think I tried this edge case when coming up with the twt hash spec, but can't tell anymore for sure. At least I've written this (2020-12-13T07:45:23-00:00 → 2020-12-13T07:45:23Z) explicitly down. The thing is, I just documented Go's behavior to make sure I don't break anything. Maybe add a test similar to this one and see what's happening. :-?