commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LANG-771) DateUtils.ceiling does not behave correctly for dates on the boundaries
Date Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:57:48 GMT


Henri Yandell updated LANG-771:

    Fix Version/s: Patch Needed

> DateUtils.ceiling does not behave correctly for dates on the boundaries
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LANG-771
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Lang
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: lang.time.*
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.1
>         Environment: Windows XP Professional
> Java 1.6
>            Reporter: Ryan Holmes
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: Patch Needed
> DateUtils.ceiling does not behave as expected for dates exactly on the boundaries specified.
> To be consistent with the name "ceiling", it follows that if a date is already at its
"ceiling", it should not be pushed any higher.  Yet the current implementation (and, it would
appear, all implementations since its creation) of DateUtils.ceiling push a value exactly
on its ceiling to the next value.
> Observe what happens if the following tests are added to DateUtilsTest.testCeil():
>          double double4 = 15.0;
>          assertEquals("ceiling double-4 failed",
>          		double4,
>          		Math.ceil(double4));
>          Date date4 = dateTimeParser.parse("March 30, 2003 01:10:00.000");
>          assertEquals("ceiling minute-4 failed",
>          		date4,
>          		DateUtils.ceiling(date4, Calendar.MINUTE));
> The first assert passes, as Math.ceil behaves as it should (i.e. Mail.ceil(15.0) = 15.0).
> However, the second assert fails with:
>    ceiling minute-4 failed expected:<Sun Mar 30 01:10:00 GMT+08:00 2003> but was:<Sun
Mar 30 01:11:00 GMT+08:00 2003>
> as the routine incorrectly (I believe) pushes the value to the next minute.
> Either the method is incorrectly named ([as previously suggested|])
or it should probably be corrected to be consistent with expected behaviour (using Math.ceil
as a benchmark).
> If changing the behaviour of DateUtils.ceiling is perceived to have too many flow-on
effects (e.g. backwards compatibility issues) then perhaps it should be renamed to DateUtils.ceil
to make it consistent with the Math class method name and to make the change in behaviour
obvious (and perhaps also have a DateUtils.floor as a synonym for DateUtils.truncate).

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message