Closed jaredweiss closed 9 years ago
Perhaps a better way to fix this is to update the config.yml
timestamp? Then no code change is necessary.
I think it makes more sense to have it tied to the NY timezone since that's the timezone the stock exchange is based on. It doesn't really seem to matter from a data perspective whether we use the UTC or New York timezone since they're effectively telling the same info.
I guess the bigger question is do we want the timezones to be representative of what the data is actually referring to (in this case stocks traded on the NYSE) or to just keep the formatting of the server that we pull the data from. This might not be the best case for the question, but what if the NY Traffic streams were originally in UTC? Would we leave them in UTC or convert them to be NY's timezone?
I think you're right. That is the reason I put timezone in the config in the first place. Good catch.
Matt Taylor OS Community Flag-Bearer Numenta
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jared Weiss notifications@github.com wrote:
I think it makes more sense to have it tied to the NY timezone since that's the timezone the stock exchange is based on. It doesn't really seem to matter from a data perspective whether we use the UTC or New York timezone since they're effectively telling the same info.
I guess the bigger question is do we want the timezones to be representative of what the data is actually referring to (in this case stocks traded on the NYSE) or to just keep the formatting of the server that we pull the data from. This might not be the best case for the question, but what if the NY Traffic streams were originally in UTC? Would we leave them in UTC or convert them to be NY's timezone?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nupic-community/river-view/pull/92#issuecomment-132760517 .
:smiley:
Deployed! Thanks.
Fixes #91
Since the returned timestamp is in UTC, it needs to be converted to the default timestamp by using
moment.tz(...)
.(Also removes an unnecessary line I must have missed during the code review.)