kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Stephen P. Smith	110a6a161d	Add `human` date format tests. When using `human` several fields are suppressed depending on the time difference between the reference date and the local computer date. In cases where the difference is less than a year, the year field is supppressed. If the time is less than a day; the month and year is suppressed. Use TEST_DATE_NOW environment variable when using the test-tool to hold the expected output strings constant. Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	6 years ago
Stephen P. Smith	b841d4ff43	Add `human` format to test-tool Add the human format support to the test tool so that GIT_TEST_DATE_NOW can be used to specify the current time. The get_time() helper function was created and and checks the GIT_TEST_DATE_NOW environment variable. If GIT_TEST_DATE_NOW is set, then that date is used instead of the date returned by by gettimeofday(). All calls to gettimeofday() were replaced by calls to get_time(). Renamed occurances of TEST_DATE_NOW to GIT_TEST_DATE_NOW since the variable is now used in the get binary and not just in the test-tool. Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	6 years ago
Jeff King	aa097b88e9	approxidate: fix NULL dereference in date_time() When we see a time like "noon", we pass "12" to our date_time() helper, which sets the hour to 12pm. If the current time is before noon, then we wrap around to yesterday using date_yesterday(). But unlike the normal calls to date_yesterday() from approxidate_alpha(), we pass a NULL "num" parameter. Since `c27cc94fad` (approxidate: handle pending number for "specials", 2018-11-02), that causes a segfault. One way to fix this is by checking for NULL. But arguably date_time() is abusing our helper by passing NULL in the first place (and this is the only case where one of these "special" parsers is used this way). So instead, let's have it just do the 1-day subtraction itself. It's still just a one-liner due to our update_tm() helper. Note that the test added here is a little funny, as we say "10am noon", which makes the "10am" seem pointless. But this bug can only be triggered when it the currently-parsed hour is before the special time. The latest special time is "tea" at 1700, but t0006 uses a hard-coded TEST_DATE_NOW of 1900. We could reset TEST_DATE_NOW, but that may lead to confusion in other tests. Just saying "10am noon" makes this test self-contained. Reported-by: Carlo Arenas <carenas@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	6 years ago
Jeff King	c27cc94fad	approxidate: handle pending number for "specials" The approxidate parser has a table of special keywords like "yesterday", "noon", "pm", etc. Some of these, like "pm", do the right thing if we've recently seen a number: "3pm" is what you'd think. However, most of them do not look at or modify the pending-number flag at all, which means a number may "jump" across a significant keyword and be used unexpectedly. For example, when parsing: January 5th noon pm we'd connect the "5" to "pm", and ignore it as a day-of-month. This is obviously a bit silly, as "noon" already implies "pm". And other mis-parsed things are generally as silly ("January 5th noon, years ago" would connect the 5 to "years", but probably nobody would type that). However, the fix is simple: when we see a keyword like "noon", we should flush the pending number (as we would if we hit another number, or the end of the string). In a few of the specials that actually modify the day, we can simply throw away the number (saying "Jan 5 yesterday" should not respect the number at all). Note that we have to either move or forward-declare the static pending_number() to make it accessible to these functions; this patch moves it. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	6 years ago
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy	a801a7cfc7	t/helper: merge test-date into test-tool Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	7 years ago
Jeff King	6eced3ec5e	date: use localtime() for "-local" time formats When we convert seconds-since-epochs timestamps into a broken-down "struct tm", we do so by adjusting the timestamp according to the known offset and then using gmtime() to break down the result. This means that the resulting struct "knows" that it's in GMT, even though the time it represents is adjusted for a different zone. The fields where it stores this data are not portably accessible, so we have no way to override them to tell them the real zone info. For the most part, this works. Our date-formatting routines don't pay attention to these inaccessible fields, and use the same tz info we provided for adjustment. The one exception is when we call strftime(), whose %Z format reveals this hidden timezone data. We solved that by always showing the empty string for %Z. This is allowed by POSIX, but not very helpful to the user. We can't make this work in the general case, as there's no portable function for setting an arbitrary timezone (and anyway, we don't have the zone name for the author zones, only their offsets). But for the special case of the "-local" formats, we can just skip the adjustment and use localtime() instead of gmtime(). This makes --date=format-local:%Z work correctly, showing the local timezone instead of an empty string. The new test checks the result for "UTC", our default test-lib value for $TZ. Using something like EST5 might be more interesting, but the actual zone string is system-dependent (for instance, on my system it expands to just EST). Hopefully "UTC" is vanilla enough that every system treats it the same. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	8 years ago
Jeff King	22280d7ee7	t0006: check --date=format zone offsets We already test that "%z" and "%Z" show the right thing, but we don't actually check that the time we display is the correct one. Let's add two new tests: 1. Test that "format:" shows the time in the author's timezone, just like the other time formats. 2. Test that "format-local:" shows time in the local timezone. We don't want to use our normal UTC for this, because its offset is zero (so the result would be "correct" even if the code forgot to apply the offset or applied it in the wrong direction). We'll use the EST5 zone, which is already used elsewhere in the script (and so is assumed to be available everywhere). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	8 years ago
René Scharfe	c3fbf81a85	strbuf: let strbuf_addftime handle %z and %Z itself There is no portable way to pass timezone information to strftime. Add parameters for timezone offset and name to strbuf_addftime and let it handle the timezone-related format specifiers %z and %Z internally. Callers can opt out for %Z by passing NULL as timezone name. %z is always handled internally -- this helps on Windows, where strftime would expand it to a timezone name (same as %Z), in violation of POSIX. Modifiers are not handled, e.g. %Ez is still passed to strftime. Use an empty string as timezone name in show_date (the only current caller) for now because we only have the timezone offset in non-local mode. POSIX allows %Z to resolve to an empty string in case of missing information. Helped-by: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	8 years ago
Johannes Schindelin	efac8ac84b	t0006 & t5000: skip "far in the future" test when time_t is too limited Git's source code refers to timestamps as unsigned long, which is ill-defined, as there is no guarantee about the number of bits that data type has. In preparation of switching to another data type that is large enough to hold "far in the future" dates, we need to prepare the t0006-date.sh script for the case where we still cannot format those dates if the system library uses 32-bit time_t. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	8 years ago
Johannes Schindelin	a07fb0507f	t0006 & t5000: prepare for 64-bit timestamps Git's source code refers to timestamps as unsigned longs. On 32-bit platforms, as well as on Windows, unsigned long is not large enough to capture dates that are "absurdly far in the future". It is perfectly valid by the C standard, of course, for the `long` data type to refer to 32-bit integers. That is why the `time_t` data type exists: so that it can be 64-bit even if `long` is 32-bit. Git's source code simply uses an incorrect data type for timestamps, is all. The earlier quick fix `6b9c38e14c` (t0006: skip "far in the future" test when unsigned long is not long enough, 2016-07-11) papered over this issue simply by skipping the respective test cases on platforms where they would fail due to the data type in use. This quick fix, however, tests for long to be 64-bit or not. What we need, though, is a test that says whether whatever data type we use for timestamps is 64-bit or not. The same quick fix was used to handle the similar problem where Git's source code uses `unsigned long` to represent size, instead of `size_t`, conflating the two issues. So let's just add another prerequisite to test specifically whether timestamps are represented by a 64-bit data type or not. Later, after we switch to a larger data type, we can flip that prerequisite to test `time_t` instead of `long`. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	8 years ago
Jeff King	642833db78	date: add "unix" format We already have "--date=raw", which is a Unix epoch timestamp plus a contextual timezone (either the author's or the local). But one may not care about the timezone and just want the epoch timestamp by itself. It's not hard to parse the two apart, but if you are using a pretty-print format, you may want git to show the "finished" form that the user will see. We can accomodate this by adding a new date format, "unix", which is basically "raw" without the timezone. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Jeff King	1a2a1e8eb9	date: document and test "raw-local" mode The "raw" format shows a Unix epoch timestamp, but with a timezone tacked on. The timestamp is not _in_ that zone, but it is extra information about the time (by default, the zone the author was in). The documentation claims that "raw-local" does not work. It does, but the end result is rather subtle. Let's describe it in better detail, and test to make sure it works (namely, the epoch time doesn't change, but the zone does). While we are rewording the documentation in this area, let's not use the phrase "does not work" for the remaining option, "--date=relative". It's vague; do we accept it or not? We do accept it, but it has no effect (which is a reasonable outcome). We should also refer to the option not as "--relative" (which is the historical synonym, and does not take "-local" at all), but as "--date=relative". Helped-by: Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Jeff King	6b9c38e14c	t0006: skip "far in the future" test when unsigned long is not long enough Git's source code refers to timestamps as unsigned longs. On 32-bit platforms, as well as on Windows, unsigned long is not large enough to capture dates that are "absurdly far in the future". While we can fix this issue properly by replacing unsigned long with a larger type, we want to be a bit more conservative and just skip those tests on the maint track. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Jeff King	bab748371a	local_tzoffset: detect errors from tm_to_time_t When we want to know the local timezone offset at a given timestamp, we compute it by asking for localtime() at the given time, and comparing the offset to GMT at that time. However, there's some juggling between time_t and "struct tm" which happens, which involves calling our own tm_to_time_t(). If that function returns an error (e.g., because it only handles dates up to the year 2099), it returns "-1", which we treat as a time_t, and is clearly bogus, leading to bizarre timestamps (that seem to always adjust the time back to (time_t)(uint32_t)-1, in the year 2106). It's not a good idea for local_tzoffset() to simply die here; it would make it hard to run "git log" on a repository with funny timestamps. Instead, let's just treat such cases as "zero offset". Reported-by: Norbert Kiesel <nkiesel@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Jeff King	36d6792157	t0006: test various date formats We ended up testing some of these date formats throughout the rest of the suite (e.g., via for-each-ref's "$(authordate:...)" format), but we never did so systematically. t0006 is the right place for unit-testing of our date-handling code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Jeff King	fdba2cdec4	t0006: rename test-date's "show" to "relative" The "show" tests are really only checking relative formats; we should make that more clear. This also frees up the "show" name to later check other formats. We could later fold "relative" into a more generic "show" command, but it's not worth it. Relative times are a special case already because we have to munge the concept of "now" in our tests. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Jeff King	d37239536c	approxidate: allow ISO-like dates far in the future When we are parsing approxidate strings and we find three numbers separate by one of ":/-.", we guess that it may be a date. We feed the numbers to match_multi_number, which checks whether it makes sense as a date in various orderings (e.g., dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy, etc). One of the checks we do is to see whether it is a date more than 10 days in the future. This was added in `38035cf` (date parsing: be friendlier to our European friends., 2006-04-05), and lets us guess that if it is currently April 2014, then "10/03/2014" is probably March 10th, not October 3rd. This has a downside, though; if you want to be overly generous with your "--until" date specification, we may wrongly parse "2014-12-01" as "2014-01-12" (because the latter is an in-the-past date). If the year is a future year (i.e., both are future dates), it gets even weirder. Due to the vagaries of approxidate, months _after_ the current date (no matter the year) get flipped, but ones before do not. This patch drops the "in the future" check for dates of this form, letting us treat them always as yyyy-mm-dd, even if they are in the future. This does not affect the normal dd/mm/yyyy versus mm/dd/yyyy lookup, because this code path only kicks in when the first number is greater than 70 (i.e., it must be a year, and cannot be either a date or a month). The one possible casualty is that "yyyy-dd-mm" is less likely to be chosen over "yyyy-mm-dd". That's probably OK, though because: 1. The difference happens only when the date is in the future. Already we prefer yyyy-mm-dd for dates in the past. 2. It's unclear whether anybody even uses yyyy-dd-mm regularly. It does not appear in lists of common date formats in Wikipedia[1,2]. 3. Even if (2) is wrong, it is better to prefer ISO-like dates, as that is consistent with what we use elsewhere in git. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_representation_by_country [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	10 years ago
Jiang Xin	4fa7e1989f	Fix tests under GETTEXT_POISON on relative dates Use the i18n-specific test_i18ncmp in t/t0006-date.sh for relative dates tests. This issue was was introduced in v1.7.10-230-g7d29a: 7d29a i18n: mark relative dates for translation and been broken under GETTEXT_POISON=YesPlease since. Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	13 years ago
Haitao Li	ee646eb48f	date.c: Support iso8601 timezone formats Timezone designators in the following formats are all valid according to ISO8601:2004, section 4.3.2: [+-]hh, [+-]hhmm, [+-]hh:mm but we have ignored the ones with colon so far. Signed-off-by: Haitao Li <lihaitao@gmail.com> Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	14 years ago
Michael J Gruber	f1e9c548ce	date: avoid "X years, 12 months" in relative dates When relative dates are more than about a year ago, we start writing them as "Y years, M months". At the point where we calculate Y and M, we have the time delta specified as a number of days. We calculate these integers as: Y = days / 365 M = (days % 365 + 15) / 30 This rounds days in the latter half of a month up to the nearest month, so that day 16 is "1 month" (or day 381 is "1 year, 1 month"). We don't round the year at all, though, meaning we can end up with "1 year, 12 months", which is silly; it should just be "2 years". Implement this differently with months of size onemonth = 365/12 so that totalmonths = (long)( (days + onemonth/2)/onemonth ) years = totalmonths / 12 months = totalmonths % 12 In order to do this without floats, we write the first formula as totalmonths = (days122 + 365) / (365*2) Tests and inspiration by Jeff King. Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	14 years ago
Brandon Casey	0cc4da3036	t/t0006: specify timezone as EST5 not EST to comply with POSIX POSIX requires that both the timezone "standard" and "offset" be specified in the TZ environment variable. This causes a problem on IRIX which does not understand the timezone 'EST'. Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	15 years ago
Jeff King	9ba0f0334d	parse_date: fix signedness in timezone calculation When no timezone is specified, we deduce the offset by subtracting the result of mktime from our calculated timestamp. However, our timestamp is stored as an unsigned integer, meaning we perform the subtraction as unsigned. For a negative offset, this means we wrap to a very high number, and our numeric timezone is in the millions of hours. You can see this bug by doing: $ TZ=EST \ GIT_AUTHOR_DATE='2010-06-01 10:00' \ git commit -a -m foo $ git cat-file -p HEAD \| grep author author Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 1275404416 +119304128 Instead, we should perform this subtraction as a time_t, the same type that mktime returns. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	15 years ago
Jeff King	6b097788f8	t0006: test timezone parsing Previously, test-date simply ignored the parsed timezone and told show_date() to use UTC. Instead, let's print out what we actually parsed. While we're at it, let's make it easy for tests to work in a specific timezone. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	15 years ago
Johan Sageryd	dbc1b1f710	Fix '--relative-date' This fixes '--relative-date' so that it does not give '0 year, 12 months', for the interval 360 <= diff < 365. Signed-off-by: Johan Sageryd <j416@1616.se> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>	16 years ago
Jeff King	931e8e27d9	fix approxidate parsing of relative months and years These were broken by b5373e9. The problem is that the code marks the month and year with "-1" for "we don't know it yet", but the month and year code paths were not adjusted to fill in the current time before doing their calculations (whereas other units follow a different code path and are fine). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	16 years ago
Jeff King	34dc6e73b0	tests: add date printing and parsing tests Until now, there was no coverage of relative date printing or approxidate parsing routines (mainly because we had no way of faking the "now" time for relative date calculations, which made consistent testing impossible). This new script tries to exercise the basic features of show_date and approxidate. Most of the tests are just "this obvious thing works" to prevent future regressions, with a few exceptions: - We confirm the fix in `607a9e8` that relative year/month dates in the latter half of a year round correctly. - We confirm that the improvements in b5373e9 and 1bddb25 work. - A few tests are marked to expect failure, which are regressions recently introduced by the two commits above. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	16 years ago

28 Commits (6053c04b88d28b31d752dc8783ff59324b6a82f7)