> On 2012-01-25 05:09:00, Harsh J wrote: > > Changes appear fine, could you also throw in a test case for each added > > scenario? > > > > The reason I do not want to comment further on joda-time switching is that > > though am +100 on it, I do not know what the rest of the Oozie folks have > > to say. Was waiting for them to comment. > > > > But I would not have date/time handling done in java defaults if I got to > > that, I've heard/seen enough bad things about it to prefer joda without a > > second thought.
Good point about the test cases. Will add that. - Jeremy ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3606/#review4581 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2012-01-25 04:55:10, Jeremy Hanna wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/3606/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2012-01-25 04:55:10) > > > Review request for oozie and Harsh J. > > > Summary > ------- > > Per the ticket, added some simple validation to the date logic. It may need > some extra attention as I'm new to contributing to the source. Also not sure > if using Joda time is on the table. > > > This addresses bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-649. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-649 > > > Diffs > ----- > > branches/3.1/core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/util/DateUtils.java > 1231531 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3606/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Jeremy > >
