Error happens on Windows98, Sun JDK 1.4.1. Does not happen on JDK 1.3.1. Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Colebourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format > There was 1 failure: > 1) > testParseCVS(org.apache.commons.lang.time.DateUtilsTest)junit.framework.Asse > rtionFailedError: parseCVS format h:mm z expected Thu Jan 01 20:54:00 GMT > 1970 but got Thu Jan 01 21:54:00 GMT 1970 > at > org.apache.commons.lang.time.DateUtilsTest.assertEquals(DateUtilsTest.java:6 > 92) > at > org.apache.commons.lang.time.DateUtilsTest.testParseCVS(DateUtilsTest.java:4 > 22) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) > at > sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39 > ) > at > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl > .java:25) > at org.apache.commons.lang.time.TimeTestSuite.main(TimeTestSuite.java:80) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:30 PM > Subject: Re: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format > > > > Quoting Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > The parseCVS h:mm z now fails on my PC. > > > > > > Locale en_GB, timezone Europe/London. GMT+01:00 > > > > Does the actual method fail, or the test? I tweaked the DateUtils class, > but I > > didn't touch that part of the parseCVS method. I did add a test for "h:mm > z", > > but it passed on my system (I don't have the locale right in front of me > at the > > moment). > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Steven Caswell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:11 AM > > > Subject: RE: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format > > > > > > > > > And I should have said that I don't know the CVS behavior either. > > > > > > So I guess the next question is how closely should we try to mimic the > CVS > > > format, given that this is the parseCVS method. Are we trying to > approximate > > > the behavior, or do we believe someone will need it to behave as it were > > > strictly compliant to CVS behavior? > > > > > > > > > Steven Caswell > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving > > > "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:58 PM > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: Re: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know the CVS answer, but todays date makes more sense > > > > here. Stephen > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Serge Knystautas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:46 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [lang] DateUtils parseCVS with time format > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven Caswell wrote: > > > > > > One of the supported formats for input to parseCVS is h:mm z. The > > > > > > method parses the time correctly, but the date is left as the > > > > > > default of > > > > January 1, > > > > > > 1970. Does this make sense, or does it make sense to have > > > > it fill in > > > > > > the current date? Since the API is silent on the expected > > > > behavior, > > > > > > it is difficult to test the API for correctness. > > > > > > > > > > Do you know how CVS works? does it set the date as that > > > > time in the > > > > > last 24 hours, or does it always set today's date? There are some > > > > > unit tests that are based on the current time, so I can put > > > > together > > > > > unit tests and correct this behavior once I'm sure what it > > > > should be. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Serge Knystautas > > > > > President > > > > > Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> > > > > http://www.lokitech.com/ > > > > > p. 1.301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
