Skip to content

Conversation

@misteregis
Copy link

PRs relating to the v4 will be closed and locked.

  • Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...). If this is a fix, please tag a bug.

0 Feature - Added Portuguese (Brazil) localization support

  • What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)

0 Currently, there is no Portuguese (Brazil) localization available for Tempus Dominus. Users who need pt-BR locale support have to either use a different locale or create their own custom localization.

  • What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

This PR adds complete Portuguese (Brazil) localization support including:

  • All UI text translations for date/time picker interface
  • Proper date and time formatting according to Brazilian standards (dd/MM/yyyy, H:mm)
  • Ordinal number formatting with "º" suffix
  • Week starts on Monday (startOfTheWeek: 1)
  • 24-hour time format (hourCycle: 'h23')
  • Comprehensive translations for all picker actions and navigation elements
  • Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)

No breaking changes. This is a purely additive feature that adds a new locale option without affecting existing functionality.

  • Other information:
  • The localization follows the same structure and patterns as existing locale files
  • All translations are culturally appropriate for Brazilian Portuguese speakers
  • Date formats follow Brazilian conventions (dd/MM/yyyy)
  • Time formats use 24-hour notation which is standard in Brazil
  • This enhancement improves accessibility for Portuguese-speaking users in Brazil

@lucaslm
Copy link

lucaslm commented Jun 25, 2025

Just a note for any reviewer. I've notice this merge request adds the exact same locale file as the request I've opened, which is #2966. I do not care which one gets merged, as long as one of then does.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: 🆕 New

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants