DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33626] - Uptodate condition is not workinge
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-18 17:39 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Executing the following:
uptodate property=jar.uptodate targetfile=D:\test.html
srcfile=D:\test.html/
echo message=jar.uptodate=${jar.uptodate}/
The message: jar.uptodate=true will be printed even though I am pointing to
the
exact same file. Following is the documentation taken from the 1.6.2 manual
for
Uptodate:
By default, the value of the property is set to true if the timestamp of the
target file(s) is more recent than the timestamp of the corresponding source
file(s). You can set the value to something other than the default by
specifying the value attribute.
Based on the documentation, the property should not have been set at all.
This was found when I upgraded from Ant 1.5.1 to 1.6.2.
It is working as expected in 1.5.1
Thanks for the reply.
I was able to change my logic to make this work.
It would be helpful if the documentation is updated, especially because the way
the logic is setup now, it's pretty confusing and almost does not match with
the condition name anymore. I'm not suggesting that the condition name be
changed, but it does seem that the condition would now be better named: updated
instead of uptodate. Updating the documentation would be a great help in the
future.
Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33626] - Uptodate condition is not workinge
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-17 20:54 --- If you had two files with the exact same modification time, you couldn't be sure that the source file was not modified after the target file, especially when you account for filesystem granularity (1 s under UNIX, 2 s on FAT/Windows). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33626] - Uptodate condition is not workinge
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-17 21:05 --- (In reply to comment #1) If you had two files with the exact same modification time, you couldn't be sure that the source file was not modified after the target file, especially when you account for filesystem granularity (1 s under UNIX, 2 s on FAT/Windows). I think we need a second opinion on this based on the following reasons: 1) If what you are saying is true, then how could the Uptodate condition ever return false? As the documentation states, the test condition is based on both the source file and target file timestamps. If this is the case, please explain in what scenario would the condition ever return false? 2) The behavior you are suggesting goes against what is stated in the documentation. 3) If 2 files have the exact modification time, should't it be assumed that the files where last modified at the same time? 4) It worked fine in version 1.5.1. Are saying that 1.5.1 had a bug and was changed to act as it does now? Could you provide me with the bug Id, so I can get a better understanding of a workaround? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33626] - Uptodate condition is not workinge
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-17 21:31 --- Okay, I messed up quite a bit there. I misread your problem, in the first place. You do expect the file to be out-of-date, but it is not. The documentation says the value of the property is set to true if the timestamp of the target file(s) is more recent than the timestamp of the corresponding source file(s). This is perhaps a misstatement as the code uses targetFile.lastModified() = sourceFile.lastModified(). This change was made in response to bug 16119 (reported against 1.5.1), which demonstrated that the behavior was different for attributes vs. filesets. At this point, then, it is perhaps the documentation that should be altered to read the value of the property is set to true if the timestamp of the source file(s) is not more recent than the timestamp of the corresponding target file(s). Sorry for the confusion, Matt -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
