David González Martínez

> it would parse and validate an `string` in ISO 8601 into `Date` obj? Right now on my app I am not even bothering with validating valid ISO 8601 dates,...

> got you > > but I'm not sure about changing the `DefaultValuePipe` because there's no way to know which behavior the dev want to have. I mean, since we...

I mean I kind of get you but my setup of DefaultValuePipe returns function, then ParseDatePipe checks if value is function, and if it is, it executes the function. If...

> > I am already using the library's DefaultValuePipe and it works fine. > > yeah but that's because your `ParseDatePipe` is aware of that, which is something too specific....

Is it fine if I start working on a PR for that?

> @davidgonmar if you don't mind on writing a PR that can be rejected, go ahead :) Will probably write it anyways when I have some free time to do...

> While I understand the need for the `ParseDatePipe`, are we sure we want to add yet another pipe to the common package? Isn't this something that could be published...

> tbh I don't know if we should or not do that. I'll leave this decision up to Kamil. > > What I found a bit off is that we...

In my case it was something like this @TrejGun ```TS @Query('date', new DefaultValuePipe(() => new Date()), ParseDatePipe) ``` To obtain the default date as 'now'. Passing new Date() does not...

Probably happens because you are not handling the matmul backwards correctly. In this example, you do (2) @ (2, 1) -> (1) in shapes, in the forward pass in the...