You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> on 2010/02/17 22:52:50 UTC

Re: svn commit: r911182 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/src/org/ofbiz/base/util/test/TimeDurationTests.java

adrianc@apache.org wrote:
> Author: adrianc
> Date: Wed Feb 17 21:40:41 2010
> New Revision: 911182
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=911182&view=rev
> Log:
> Added a test for TimeDuration pre-epoch elapsed time, plus added SVN properties.

I was just talking to Ean that there needed to be a test for your fix.
  Have you verified that the test case breaks before you added your fix?

Re: svn commit: r911182 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/src/org/ofbiz/base/util/test/TimeDurationTests.java

Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.

Adrian Crum wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
>> adrianc@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: adrianc
>>> Date: Wed Feb 17 21:40:41 2010
>>> New Revision: 911182
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=911182&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Added a test for TimeDuration pre-epoch elapsed time, plus added SVN
>>> properties.
>>
>> I was just talking to Ean that there needed to be a test for your fix.
>>   Have you verified that the test case breaks before you added your fix?
> 
> No. The original code assumed both millisecond values were positive, so
> it was a pretty safe assumption that it would break with negative numbers.

Ok, I'll add it to my list of things to try.

Re: svn commit: r911182 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/src/org/ofbiz/base/util/test/TimeDurationTests.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.

Adam Heath wrote:
> adrianc@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: adrianc
>> Date: Wed Feb 17 21:40:41 2010
>> New Revision: 911182
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=911182&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Added a test for TimeDuration pre-epoch elapsed time, plus added SVN properties.
> 
> I was just talking to Ean that there needed to be a test for your fix.
>   Have you verified that the test case breaks before you added your fix?

No. The original code assumed both millisecond values were positive, so 
it was a pretty safe assumption that it would break with negative numbers.