On 09/09/2013 09:42 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi Peter,
Right, max doesn't solve the issue but I'm not keen on a test that
retries
until it gets a better answer.
Hi Roger,
If java.time logic is correct, it should only ever retry once when
roll-over or DST jump-back happens, so the test could be made to fail if
it tries to retry the 2nd time, indicating unexpected behaviour. The
"jumps" in LocalTime should be very far-apart so the test should only
encounter one of them, if any.
Adding nanosPerDay if the difference comes out negative would adjust
for the crossing of midnight and not require looping on a more complex
test condition.
That's ok for midnight roll-over, but what about DST jumps? They only
happen two times a year, so you expect the test will never encounter them?
Regards, Peter
The longish delay in the now() method is due to first-time initialization
that reads the timezone data file. Introducing the loop it would change
the test condition so that it is not testing the 'cold' startup.
However, the purpose of the test in not to measure the initialization
overhead
so adding an extra sampling of now(Clock) before the test will remove
the first time
initialization.
Updated webrev at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-localtime-now-8023639/
Thanks, Roger
On 9/9/2013 11:14 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
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
