You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@daffodil.apache.org by "Josh Adams (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2019/02/06 18:18:00 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (DAFFODIL-2017) Non-portable date/time
test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_02
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16761993#comment-16761993 ]
Josh Adams commented on DAFFODIL-2017:
--------------------------------------
I have pushed up a pull request that only ended up being the addition of a comment to explain why the test_length_delimited_12_01 and 02 fail due to the incompatibility mentioned in DAFFODIL-2018.
I did not add the compatibility flag for this bug as it was not needed for this case. I figured that the flag could be implemented once we run into a case where it is needed.
> 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: Josh Adams
> Priority: Major
> Labels: ForInteroperabilityTest
>
> 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)