Hardcode KASI-derived data #7008
Merged
+10
−6
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. |
Manishearth
force-pushed
the
kasi-data
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f41a88e to
559c29d
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Manishearth
commented
Oct 1, 2025
Manishearth
changed the title
Comment on lines
+19
to
+30
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1900, [s, l, s, s, l, s, l, l, s, l, l, s, l], Some(9), gregorian(1900, 1, 31)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1901, [s, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, l, l, s, s], None, gregorian(1901, 2, 19)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1902, [l, s, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, l, l, s], None, gregorian(1902, 2, 8)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1903, [s, l, s, l, s, s, l, s, s, l, l, l, s], Some(6), gregorian(1903, 1, 29)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1904, [l, l, s, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, s, s], None, gregorian(1904, 2, 16)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1905, [l, l, l, s, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, s], None, gregorian(1905, 2, 4)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1903, [s, l, s, l, s, s, l, s, s, l, l, s, l], Some(6), gregorian(1903, 1, 29)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1904, [l, l, s, l, s, s, l, s, s, l, l, s, s], None, gregorian(1904, 2, 16)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1905, [l, l, s, l, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, s], None, gregorian(1905, 2, 4)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1906, [s, l, l, s, l, s, l, s, l, s, l, s, l], Some(5), gregorian(1906, 1, 25)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1907, [s, l, s, l, s, l, l, s, l, s, l, s, s], None, gregorian(1907, 2, 13)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1908, [l, s, l, s, l, s, l, s, l, l, s, l, s], None, gregorian(1908, 2, 2)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1908, [l, s, s, l, l, s, l, s, l, l, s, l, s], None, gregorian(1908, 2, 2)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1909, [s, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, l, l, s, l], Some(3), gregorian(1909, 1, 22)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1910, [s, l, s, s, l, s, l, s, l, l, l, s, s], None, gregorian(1910, 2, 10)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1911, [l, s, l, s, s, l, s, s, l, l, l, s, l], Some(7), gregorian(1911, 1, 30)), | ||
| PackedChineseBasedYearInfo::new(1911, [l, s, l, s, s, l, s, s, l, l, s, l, l], Some(7), gregorian(1911, 1, 30)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
observation: the 1900-1911 data matches China. one more reason to treat that differently
robertbastian
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2025
…st (#7013) In https://github.com/unicode-org/icu4x/pull/7007/files#r2393049682 I noticed a Korean reference year was incorrect. At first I thought it was due to a KASI mismatch, but it turns out our algorithm matches KASI from 1912 onwards (#7008), and you can see the bug in our code too. The bug was due to `generate_reference_years()` not doing Dangi: it can be edited to do Dangi, but you have to be careful to update it in two places. If you only change `new_china()` to `new_dangi()` you get buggy data. I was surprised this wasn't caught by the reference year test. Turns out; the reference year test discards all dates that don't successfully go through MonthDay, and currently if the produced reference year is invalid, MonthDay construction errors. I updated the test to instead understand what monthday combinations are valid for each calendar. --------- Co-authored-by: Robert Bastian <[email protected]>
robertbastian
force-pushed
the
kasi-data
branch
from
2270e2e to
f345c65
Compare
robertbastian
changed the title
robertbastian
approved these changes
Oct 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The code and data used for fetching this will be pushed up to a separate (private) Unicode repo once we have one. You can find the cleaned up source data in https://gist.github.com/Manishearth/d8c94a7df22a9eacefc4472a5805322e.
I'm imagining that post-1950 data will change or be removed with #7006
The initial motivation here was to fix the apparent ground truth mismatch found in https://github.com/unicode-org/icu4x/pull/7007/files#r2393049682. Turns out it was a different problem, and it has been fixed in #7013.
We may potentially need the same discussion as #6970 about whether we care about these pre-1912 dates, since that's the only time this diverges.