commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory Winston <rory.wins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [NET] fixing short date parsing problems (was: [VOTE] Release Commons Net 1.5)
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:10:22 GMT
Sebb/Martin

The lenient future dates flag just allows a window of +1 day in the 
short timestamp, which if > now(), will not be rolled back by a year. 
This is to prevent dates slightly in the future being rolled back 
inappropriately. You keep mentioning the +/- 6 month thing - the problem 
is that this (like a lot of other FTP stuff) isn't a standard and you 
can't depend on it. Still, there are a bunch of other flags in there to 
work around other issues, so maybe another flag might be required for 
fully comprehensive date handling.

Say if we have a date d ( 1 day < d <= 6 months) in the future, this 
flag would control whether d is rolled back (as it would be now) or kept 
in the current year (which we would need a flag for).

Is this what is needed to get the remaining tests to pass?

Rory

sebb wrote:
> On 10/03/2008, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 10/03/2008, Rory Winston <rory.winston@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > Hi Sebb
>>  >
>>  >  A couple of things:
>>  >
>>  >  1. Which tests are you referring to in your first point below?
>>
>>
>> testFeb29IfLeapYear(org.apache.commons.net.ftp.parser.FTPTimestampParserImplTest)
>>  testFeb29LeapYear(org.apache.commons.net.ftp.parser.FTPTimestampParserImplTest)
>>
>>  The first one only applies in leap years - it was designed before the
>>  addition of the server calendar parameter. It could perhaps be
>>  dropped.
>>
>>  I've since fixed the following test, and it also fails, but only on 1.4:
>>
>>  testFeb29NonLeapYear(org.apache.commons.net.ftp.parser.FTPTimestampParserImplTest)
>>
>>
>>  >  2. Does the assumption have anything to do with the lenientFutureDates
>>  >  flag in FTPTimestampParserImpl?
>>  >
>>
>>
>> Yes, the *nix future dates thing is tied in with lenientFutureDates.
>>
>>  I suspect there may need to be a new flag which enables *nix style +/-
>>  6 months dates.
>>
>>  I don't understand what the lenient flag is about - was it part of an
>>  attempt to handle *nix dates (in which case it's wrong, as lenient
>>  allows up to 1 year in arrears), or is it for different OSes?
>>
>>  The past and future date tests need extending as well; there should be
>>  one test where the current date is in the first 6 months of the year,
>>  and another where it is in the second 6 months of the year (and
>>  perhaps leap/non-leap years too).
>>
>>     
>
> The past and future tests have been updated as above.
>
> The future tests fail on both trunk and 2.0.
> However, the cases where they apply are relatively rare, so fixing
> them could be left until a later release.
>
> The Feb 29 failures definitely need to be fixed before trunk is released.
>
> It seems to me that there will probably still be some valid edge cases
> where the date validation fails. AIUI at present this would mean that
> the entire entry is set to null.
>
> Seems to me it would be a lot better if the FTPFile entry was still
> generated, but with a null date.
>
> Not all users need the dates, so this would allow Net to fail more gracefully.
>
>   
>>  >  Rory
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  sebb wrote:
>>  >  > I've committed updates to the FTPTimestampParserImplTest classes in
>>  >  > trunk and NET_2_0.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > The 2 additional tests for Feb 29 fail on Java 1.3/1.4.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Both trunk (Java 1.3/1.4) and NET_2_0 (Java 1.5+) now fail on short
>>  >  > dates that fall in a different year from current (previous or next).
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Some of the existing tests assume that dates cannot be more than 1
>>  >  > hour in the future - IMO this is wrong - so I propose to drop these
>>  >  > tests.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > I'm working on a patch which I'll add as a patch to NET-188.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > On 09/03/2008, Rory Winston <rory.winston@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  >
>>  >  >> Sure, you can just add them directly yourself if you like.
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >> Rory
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>  The *nix short date formatting fixes don't currently have any tests,
>>  >  >>  at least when I last checked.
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>  I think these need to be added first.
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>  I can add some later today if that's OK with you?
>>  >  >>  Or do you want them done as patches via Jira?
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >> On 09/03/2008, Rory Winston <rory.winston@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  >>  > Hi James
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  >  Yes, I'm going to cut new RCs for 1.5 and 2.0.
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  >  Thanks
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  > Rory
>>  >  >>  >
>>  >  >>  >
>>
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>     
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message