Bug 139043 - beryl-blog pubDate seems to be parsed wrong
Summary: beryl-blog pubDate seems to be parsed wrong
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: akregator
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: unspecified Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: kdepim bugs
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-12-20 12:13 UTC by Martin van Es
Modified: 2007-01-12 17:29 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin van Es 2006-12-20 12:13:15 UTC
Version:           1.2.5 (using KDE 3.5.5, Kubuntu (edgy) 4:3.5.5-0ubuntu3)
Compiler:          Target: i486-linux-gnu
OS:                Linux (i686) release 2.6.19

The beryl-project blog feed (http://blog.beryl-project.org/?feed=rss2) uses the following pubDate tag format:

<pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:35:31 +0000</pubDate>

In my Akregator this results in a parsed date of "18.10.2006 01:00" however.
The problem now is that the articles are not sorted chronologically anymore.
Comment 1 deleted_email_KsJQa 2006-12-26 20:02:32 UTC
I have no idea if this is a related problem (the result is more problematic, however), but the feed on http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/feed/ (and I already saw a few other feeds which resulted in the same problem) leads to date problems too.

For most entries, I get dates like "2935093-02-24 23:59", and sometimes, only " 00:00". Order is random.

When I unselect the feed, and select it again, the entries are simply gone.

I can fetch the feed a second time (it shows the whole list again), but the result is the same.

There is no entry count, in the feed list, and "Mark feed as read" does not work... (does nothing). If I click on each entries -or select ranges-, it goes from red to back, though.

I'm not sure if news are still showed, with automatic fetching.

The dates in the feed seems pretty normal...

<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:11:44 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:08:11 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:41:35 +0000</pubDate>


The problem sure is more problematic than the original report, but it seems related to date parsing, so I post my comment here... if needed, I'll create a different report, though.

feedvalidator.org only talks about MIME type problem, and the Web server announcing ASCII, though the feed announces UTF-8... It would not seem to be the cause of the problem, but I have absolutely no idea how Akregator is coded and what it uses to parse the feeds.
Comment 2 deleted_email_KsJQa 2006-12-26 20:10:02 UTC
(I'm using Akregator 1.2.5, with KDE 3.5.5, too, on Gentoo Linux, x86, with GCC-4.1.1, Glibc-2.4, and QT-3.3.6)
Comment 3 deleted_email_KsJQa 2006-12-26 20:24:27 UTC
Sorry for the bug spam, but I just noticed both the feed from my comment, and the one from the original report, are generated by Wordpress 2.0.5... A quick search on Google does not lead to relevant results, though, so it probably is a recent problem...

I can't find changes related to feeds, in the changelog, though... (http://codex.wordpress.org/Changelog/2.0.5 and http://codex.wordpress.org/Changelog/2.0.4 -I only checked quickly, however, and SVN changelogs are not the best, for readability and comprehension :/).
Comment 4 Frank Osterfeld 2007-01-12 16:20:12 UTC
Can you still reproduce this with the current feed?
Comment 5 Martin van Es 2007-01-12 16:56:17 UTC
The beryl-blog is not very high-volume, but as far as I can see now, for some strange reason it seems to be solved?
Comment 6 deleted_email_KsJQa 2007-01-12 17:29:58 UTC
>
> [...] for some strange reason it seems to be solved? 
>


If you didn't saw it, there is another similar report, where I posted other informations: bug #139302.

The problems I had also have disappeared, but nothing have really changed, be it in the feed, or in my installation.