[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-mcron] tests/job-specifier.scm vs. TZ
From: |
Mathieu Lirzin |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-mcron] tests/job-specifier.scm vs. TZ |
Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:26:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello ludo,
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Thanks for the 1.1.1 release!
Thank you for your helpful testing and feedback which lead to it. :-)
I intended to mention your valuable contribution in the release
announcement but forgot about it during the process which I am still not
comfortable with. Sorry about that.
> Looks like tests/job-specifier.scm has a timezone issue, though. It
> expects to be running at UTC-2 (aka. CEST). But even then, there’s
> something wrong:
OK
> test-name: next-year
> location: ./tests/job-specifier.scm:60
> source:
> + (test-equal
> + "next-year"
> + (list 59989762800 1546293600)
> + (list (next-year '(1971))
> + (next-year-from 1522095469)))
> expected-value: (59989762800 1546293600)
> actual-value: (59989759200 1546293600)
> result: FAIL
>
> test-name: next-month
> location: ./tests/job-specifier.scm:65
> source:
> + (test-equal
> + "next-month"
> + (list 28854000 5094000)
> + (list (next-month '(11))
> + (next-month-from 101 '(0 2 4))))
> expected-value: (28854000 5094000)
> actual-value: (28850400 5090400)
> result: FAIL
>
> test-name: next-day
> location: ./tests/job-specifier.scm:70
> source:
> + (test-equal
> + "next-day"
> + (list 2588400 342000)
> + (list (next-day '(31))
> + (next-day-from 4337 '(0 5 10))))
> expected-value: (2588400 342000)
> actual-value: (2584800 338400)
> result: FAIL
>
> test-name: next-hour
> location: ./tests/job-specifier.scm:75
> source:
> + (test-equal
> + "next-hour"
> + '(3600 82800 3600)
> + (list (next-hour)
> + (next-hour '(0))
> + (next-hour-from 3 '(0 1 2 3 4))))
> expected-value: (3600 82800 3600)
> actual-value: (3600 79200 3600)
> result: FAIL
>
> It looks like the ‘-from’ variants honor TZ whereas the others don’t,
> or something like that.
>
> Ideas?
Seems weird, since ‘(next-... lst)’ is basically equivalent to
‘(next-...-from 0 lst)’.
I will take a closer look tomorrow.
Thanks for the report.
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37