On 09/09/2013 03:12 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi Peter,
The possible wrap-around caused by crossing midnight is handled by
Math.max
so a retry is not needed.
Math.abs(test.toNanoOfDay() - expected.toNanoOfDay())
Hi Roger,
In case there is a wrap-around, the 'diff' is much more than 500,000,000
ns (about 24*60*60*1,000,000,000 ns - delay), which fails the test.
But what do you think about testing before <= test <= after ? It should
not be timing dependent, like it is now. Does it test the same thing?
Regards, Peter
Thanks, Roger
On 9/9/2013 2:14 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 09/06/2013 07:58 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Please review for two corrections:
- The java/time/tck/java/time/TCKLocalTime test failed on a slow
machine;
the test should be more lenient. The test is not appropriate
for a conformance test
and is moved to java/time/test/java/time/TestLocalTime.
- The javadoc for the JapaneseEra.MEIJI era should indicate the
start date is 1868-01-01
to be consistent with java.util.Calendar. Note that java.time
does not permit dates before Meiji 6
to be created since the calendar is not clearly defined until then.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-localtime-now-8023639/
Thanks, Roger
Hi Roger,
Although very in-probable, the test can fail when 'expected' is
sampled before and 'test' is sampled after midnight. I'm guessing the
test is trying to prove that LocalTime.now() is equivalent to
LocalTime.now(Clock.systemDefaultZone()), right?
In that case, what about the following:
public void now() {
LocalTime before, test, after;
do {
before = LocalTime.now(Clock.systemDefaultZone());
test = LocalTime.now();
after = LocalTime.now(Clock.systemDefaultZone());
// retry in case the samples were obtained around midnight
} while (before.compareTo(after) > 0);
assertTrue(before.compareTo(test) <= 0 &&
test.compareTo(after) <= 0);
}
Regards, Peter
