[jira] [Resolved] (DAFFODIL-2017) Non-portable date/time test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_02

["Josh Adams (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Josh Adams resolved DAFFODIL-2017.
----------------------------------
       Resolution: Fixed
         Assignee: Dave Thompson  (was: Josh Adams)
    Fix Version/s: 2.3.0

As Steve suggested, if you have the IBM cross tester set up, the date/time tests pass due to the equivalent checking that Steve recently added (ie. 1:00 ==  1:00.000).

Tests test_length_delimited_12_01 and 02 still fail due to a bug in IBM's implementation, see DAFFODIL-2018.

> Non-portable date/time test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_02
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DAFFODIL-2017
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2017
>             Project: Daffodil
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Back End, Compatibility
>    Affects Versions: 2.2.0
>            Reporter: Michael Beckerle
>            Assignee: Dave Thompson
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: ForInteroperabilityTest
>             Fix For: 2.3.0
>
>
> Ran under IBM DFDL. The test failed.
> Differences are 
> * IBM uses "Z" where Daffodil uses "+00:00"
> * IBM shows "000" for fractional seconds where Daffodil does not
> Question is: which one is correct and why. If "both" behaviors are "allowed", then we likely need a switch in Daffodil to prefer the same behavior as IBM DFDL, vs. staying with the current behavior (which we still need to preserve for existing users.)
> Here's the output when running on IBM DFDL.
> {{org.apache.daffodil.tdml.TDMLExceptionImpl: (Implementation: ibm) 
> Comparison failed.
> Expected
>           <calendar_group><date1>2010-12-30+00:00</date1><time1>04:05:06+01:00</time1><datetime1>2010-12-30T04:05:06+00:00</datetime1></calendar_group>
> Actual
>           <calendar_group><date1>2010-12-30Z</date1><time1>04:05:06.000+01:00</time1><datetime1>2010-12-30T04:05:06.000Z</datetime1></calendar_group>
> Differences were (path, expected, actual):
>  (calendar_group/date1,'2010-12-30+00:00','2010-12-30Z')
> (calendar_group/time1,'04:05:06+01:00','04:05:06.000+01:00')
> (calendar_group/datetime1,'2010-12-30T04:05:06+00:00','2010-12-30T04:05:06.000Z')}}
> The same issues arise for these tests:
> test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_03
> test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_04
> test_simple_type_properties_bin_calendar_13_01
> test_simple_type_properties_bin_calendar_13_02
> test_length_delimited_12_01
> test_length_delimited_12_02
> 	
> These tests originated with IBM (a LONG time ago), though it's possible we changed them to match Daffodil behavior if we thought the behavior was correct the way we changed it. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)