| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
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 6b9c38e14cd (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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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 = (days*12*2 + 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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
