Improve set_time error handling for large Python integers

[oxkitsune]

Related

• Closes set_time Cannot handle large Python integers #9822

What

Adds a clear error message when set_time receives an out-of-range timestamp.

[emilk]

How large integers were you passing in, and why?

And shouldn't we protect against the same problem for sequence and duration timelines too?

[oxkitsune]

I was passing a timestamp in milliseconds since unix epoch, e.g. '1_745_943_196_000'. But since we assume seconds, it would then be multiplied by 1e9 to convert to nanoseconds.

I don't think sequence and duration suffer from the same gotcha, so I'd argue it's not necessary.

[emilk]

Sounds like we could improve the error message then with something along the lines of:

if 1_500_000_000_000 < timestamp < 2_000_000_000_000:
    raise "Expected seconds since unix epoch, but it looks like this is milliseconds"

[oxkitsune]

Yea I like this more as well. However 2_000_000_000_000 is only valid for about 8 years.

Let's check if timestamp is bigger than 1e11 which will always mean milliseconds instead of seconds 👍

[emilk]

What is the !r?

[oxkitsune]

It formats the value using repr(), instead of str().

import numpy as np

a = np.int64(123)
b = 123

print(f"{a!r} {a}")
print(f"{b!r} {b}")

would result in:

np.int64(123) 123
123 123

Figured that this would be desired to clearly show which type is being used, since we can take in numpy integers, python integers and floats iirc.

[emilk]

TIL!