Lexert19 opened a new pull request, #17961:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/17961

   ## Description
   
   For #12537
   
   This PR does not fully fix the TimeRangeIterator timezone bug, it adds 
reproducible tests that document the current behavior.
   
   Changes in TimeRangeIteratorTest:
   1. testNaturalMonthTimeRange – it's hardcoded to UTC.
   2. Added testMonthOffsetCases() – tests monthly windows across DST 
transitions and historical offset changes:
   3. Added testOffsetCases().
   This test is marked @Ignore on purpose.
   org.apache.tsfile.utils.TimeDuration treats a day as a fixed physical 
duration of 86400000ms, not a calendar day in the given ZoneId. Because of 
that, daily windows drift on 23h/25h DST days and on historical offset changes.
   
   The DateTimeUtils.toZoneOffset(ZoneId zoneId) fix  has been moved to a 
separate issue.
   <!--
   In each section, please describe design decisions made, including:
    - Choice of algorithms
    - Behavioral aspects. What configuration values are acceptable? How are 
corner cases and error 
       conditions handled, such as when there are insufficient resources?
    - Class organization and design (how the logic is split between classes, 
inheritance, composition, 
       design patterns)
    - Method organization and design (how the logic is split between methods, 
parameters and return types)
    - Naming (class, method, API, configuration, HTTP endpoint, names of 
emitted metrics)
   -->
   
   
   <!-- It's good to describe an alternative design (or mention an alternative 
name) for every design 
   (or naming) decision point and compare the alternatives with the designs 
that you've implemented 
   (or the names you've chosen) to highlight the advantages of the chosen 
designs and names. -->
   
   <!-- If there was a discussion of the design of the feature implemented in 
this PR elsewhere 
   (e. g. a "Proposal" issue, any other issue, or a thread in the development 
mailing list), 
   link to that discussion from this PR description and explain what have 
changed in your final design 
   compared to your original proposal or the consensus version in the end of 
the discussion. 
   If something hasn't changed since the original discussion, you can omit a 
detailed discussion of 
   those aspects of the design here, perhaps apart from brief mentioning for 
the sake of readability 
   of this PR description. -->
   
   <!-- Some of the aspects mentioned above may be omitted for simple and small 
changes. -->
   
   <hr>
   
   This PR has:
   - [ x] been self-reviewed.
       - [ ] concurrent read
       - [ ] concurrent write
       - [ ] concurrent read and write 
   - [ ] added documentation for new or modified features or behaviors.
   - [ ] added Javadocs for most classes and all non-trivial methods. 
   - [ ] added or updated version, __license__, or notice information
   - [ x] added comments explaining the "why" and the intent of the code 
wherever would not be obvious 
     for an unfamiliar reader.
   - [ ] added unit tests or modified existing tests to cover new code paths, 
ensuring the threshold 
     for code coverage.
   - [x ] added integration tests.
   - [ ] been tested in a test IoTDB cluster.
   
   <!-- Check the items by putting "x" in the brackets for the done things. Not 
all of these items 
   apply to every PR. Remove the items which are not done or not relevant to 
the PR. None of the items 
   from the checklist above are strictly necessary, but it would be very 
helpful if you at least 
   self-review the PR. -->
   
   <hr>
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to