You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Console output is meant to be human-readable, but durations are shown as floats (e.g., in seconds or milliseconds) which is far from human-readable for non-simple durations. I know that the issue is that console output is interpreting data in JSON, and in JSON the fact that a field was a duration is lost, is just a number, but I still think some solution to this should be provided.
One way would be to use FormatFieldValue but sadly it does not get field name as a parameter, so one cannot hard-code it to (known/used) duration field names to convert float to formatted duration string.
Maybe DurationFields could get a list of duration field names?
Currently, it looks that the only workaround is to use FormatPrepare which can do some preprocessing based on (known/used) field names.
Any other suggestion how to tackle this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It seems there is now also FormatPartValueByName to allow formatting per field name, but this is still tricky as you have to maintain what are names of duration fields.
Console output is meant to be human-readable, but durations are shown as floats (e.g., in seconds or milliseconds) which is far from human-readable for non-simple durations. I know that the issue is that console output is interpreting data in JSON, and in JSON the fact that a field was a duration is lost, is just a number, but I still think some solution to this should be provided.
One way would be to use
FormatFieldValue
but sadly it does not get field name as a parameter, so one cannot hard-code it to (known/used) duration field names to convert float to formatted duration string.Maybe
DurationFields
could get a list of duration field names?Currently, it looks that the only workaround is to use
FormatPrepare
which can do some preprocessing based on (known/used) field names.Any other suggestion how to tackle this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: