[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5769?focusedWorklogId=995608&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-995608
 ]

ASF GitHub Bot logged work on ARTEMIS-5769:
-------------------------------------------

                Author: ASF GitHub Bot
            Created on: 10/Dec/25 17:46
            Start Date: 10/Dec/25 17:46
    Worklog Time Spent: 10m 
      Work Description: gemmellr commented on code in PR #6119:
URL: https://github.com/apache/artemis/pull/6119#discussion_r2607640255


##########
tests/integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/tests/integration/management/ActiveMQServerControlTest.java:
##########
@@ -4385,10 +4386,9 @@ public void testListConsumers() throws Exception {
          assertNotEquals("", 
jsonConsumer.getString(ConsumerField.MESSAGES_DELIVERED.getName()), 
"messagesDelivered");
          assertNotEquals("", 
jsonConsumer.getString(ConsumerField.MESSAGES_DELIVERED_SIZE.getName()), 
"messagesDeliveredSize");
          assertNotEquals("", 
jsonConsumer.getString(ConsumerField.MESSAGES_ACKNOWLEDGED.getName()), 
"messagesAcknowledged");
-         assertEquals(0, 
jsonConsumer.getInt(ConsumerField.LAST_DELIVERED_TIME.getName()), 
"lastDeliveredTime");
-         assertEquals(0, 
jsonConsumer.getInt(ConsumerField.LAST_ACKNOWLEDGED_TIME.getName()), 
"lastAcknowledgedTime");
+         assertNotEquals("", 
jsonConsumer.getString(ConsumerField.LAST_DELIVERED_TIME.getName()), 
"lastDeliveredTime");
+         assertNotEquals("", 
jsonConsumer.getString(ConsumerField.LAST_ACKNOWLEDGED_TIME.getName()), 
"lastAcknowledgedTime");

Review Comment:
   I dont really 'get' this change, or more the previous one that broke the 
test.
   
   This was known to be a fixed 0 integer before your previous change, but now 
all it checks is its got a non-empty string value. Was the prior 0 reflective 
of not-delivering or not-acknowledging ? Would an empty value / absence not be 
more reflective of that? From the other change I guess this a string saying 
1970 etc for the epoch? Not sure it feels like an improvement, especially as 
its a breaking change on top.





Issue Time Tracking
-------------------

    Worklog Id:     (was: 995608)
    Time Spent: 0.5h  (was: 20m)

> Standardize date-time strings for web console
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARTEMIS-5769
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5769
>             Project: Artemis
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Justin Bertram
>            Assignee: Justin Bertram
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: pull-request-available
>             Fix For: 2.45.0
>
>          Time Spent: 0.5h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Currently many of the fields requested by the web console that contain 
> date-time info are formatted on the broker using:
> {code:java}
> new Date(long).toString(){code}
> This results in output like this:
> {noformat}
> Wed Dec 31 18:00:00 CST 1969{noformat}
> This results in unnecessary garbage in the JVM heap and uses an implicit 
> format. It would be better to use an explicit format and avoid any garbage in 
> the heap.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to