datetime validation fails if seconds are missing #3636

u2ix · 2024-07-11T23:44:03Z

Have an issue with a valid datetime value, as produced by the browser in a datetime picker field, is not accepted by the datetime() validation. After some digging I figured that when the seconds :00 are added the validation passes.

But according to ISO 8601, just the hour is required for a valid time. Also as the timestamp is produced like this "2024-07-18T11:00", I feel it would be really great if this is accepted by the library as also the Date constructor doesn't have any issue with this.

For now I had to put in a quite ugly preprocess to make the validation pass on the value provided by the browser:

z.preprocess(input => `${input}:00`,
            z.string().datetime({ local: true }))

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

sachix1001 · 2024-08-15T04:55:33Z

I have the same issue.

itsthekeming · 2024-08-16T14:40:33Z

Likewise. I'm using js-joda to handle dates, and its LocalDateTime.toString() implementation follows the spec.

anthonyhagi · 2024-09-06T11:01:40Z

I've noticed the same issue with z.string().time() where it requires HH:MM:SS to actually validate. The <input type='time' /> input by default uses HH:MM as mentioned in the MDN docs

Hopefully this can be fixed sometime soon

Dino-Kupinic · 2024-12-12T09:57:49Z

An option to toggle between HH:MM and HH:MM:SS would be nice

fvilers · 2025-02-07T07:58:11Z

At first I was open to write a PR to implement it but the documentation specifies that the .time() function validates against the ISO time format so having an option to omit the seconds is not ideal here. You can always use a regex to validate the string for a valid time expression with optional seconds. Here's mine: /^([01]\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\d(:[0-5]\d)?$/.

u2ix · 2025-02-07T09:46:09Z

@fvilers But a ISO time format is also valid without the seconds, and it's the way that browsers return the date in a valid ISO format, but the validation in the library tells us it's wrong. Going for a regex here, instead of fixing a obvious bug in this library, that many people have (see all the up-votes), seems to be kinda hack or a workaround, but not solving the problem.

fvilers · 2025-02-07T10:14:29Z

@u2ix As I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Times you might be right. It looks like the seconds could be omitted. I might create a PR to add this feature (an approval from the maintainer(s) would be great). Using a regex is not hacky as it's what is used behind the scenes by the time() validator. And as I see things, there is no bug in the current implementation as the documentation clearly states that the seconds are mandatory (z.string().time(); // ISO time format (HH:mm:ss[.SSSSSS]))

ronnyandre · 2025-03-21T11:32:44Z

Pleeease fix this annoying issue (not bug).. I think a modern library should handle without seconds.

stevemk42 · 2025-04-12T18:08:01Z

Same here. input with datetime-local type fails zod validation.

For my use case, I had to break down my input in 2 parts: time and date.

Waiting for some update here. Thanks ahead

timorthi · 2025-05-03T20:06:02Z

Hi all, I was also running into the same issue, so I've submitted a PR for this change (#4315).

colinhacks · 2025-05-04T23:42:56Z

Landed in 3.24.4

timorthi mentioned this issue May 3, 2025

Allow HH:MM format in z.string().datetime() and z.string().time() #4315

Merged

colinhacks closed this as completed May 4, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

datetime validation fails if seconds are missing #3636

datetime validation fails if seconds are missing #3636

datetime validation fails if seconds are missing #3636

datetime validation fails if seconds are missing #3636

Comments