Michael Beckerle created DAFFODIL-2017:
------------------------------------------
Summary: Non-portable date/time
test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_02
Key: DAFFODIL-2017
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2017
Project: Daffodil
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Back End, Compatibility
Affects Versions: 2.2.0
Reporter: Michael Beckerle
Ran under IBM DFDL. The test failed.
Differences are
* IBM uses "Z" where Daffodil uses "+00:00"
* IBM shows "000" for fractional seconds where Daffodil does not
Question is: which one is correct and why. If "both" behaviors are "allowed",
then we likely need a switch in Daffodil to prefer the same behavior as IBM
DFDL, vs. staying with the current behavior (which we still need to preserve
for existing users.)
Here's the output when running on IBM DFDL.
{{org.apache.daffodil.tdml.TDMLExceptionImpl: (Implementation: ibm)
Comparison failed.
Expected
<calendar_group><date1>2010-12-30+00:00</date1><time1>04:05:06+01:00</time1><datetime1>2010-12-30T04:05:06+00:00</datetime1></calendar_group>
Actual
<calendar_group><date1>2010-12-30Z</date1><time1>04:05:06.000+01:00</time1><datetime1>2010-12-30T04:05:06.000Z</datetime1></calendar_group>
Differences were (path, expected, actual):
(calendar_group/date1,'2010-12-30+00:00','2010-12-30Z')
(calendar_group/time1,'04:05:06+01:00','04:05:06.000+01:00')
(calendar_group/datetime1,'2010-12-30T04:05:06+00:00','2010-12-30T04:05:06.000Z')}}
The same issues arise for these tests:
test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_03
test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_04
test_simple_type_properties_bin_calendar_13_01
test_simple_type_properties_bin_calendar_13_02
test_length_delimited_12_01
test_length_delimited_12_02
These tests originated with IBM (a LONG time ago), though it's possible we
changed them to match Daffodil behavior if we thought the behavior was correct
the way we changed it.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
