From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: David Reiss <dreiss@facebook.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Round-down years in "years+months" relative date view
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:21:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <81b0412b0908281121s1d37a0cdj1cdd0595014124e7@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090828171552.GA6821@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 19:15, Jeff King<peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 07:00:59PM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 17:02, Jeff King<peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> > But that's the point: you can't do that without a race condition. Your
>> > test gets a sense of the current time, then runs git, which checks the
>> > current time again. How many seconds elapsed between the two checks?
>>
>> How _many_ do you need?
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say. My point is that if you
> are checking results to a one-second precision, you need to know whether
> zero seconds elapsed, or one second, or two seconds, or whatever to get
> a consistent result.
Taking this particular case as an example, can't we just set the time
of the _commit_ back in time? We can.
And we don't need to know the difference precisely, it can be
something like /[0-9]+ ago/, can't it?
Ok, it is possible, that something goes terribly wrong and the test suite
freezes for an extended period of time, so the pattern above does
not apply anymore. In this case, wont you prefer the test suite to
break? Ok, maybe not, if the freeze was an Ctrl-Z pressed at
unlucky moment. Which involves an operator online and looking,
and action and reaction will be both visible.
So, yes, it is not absolutely safe, but this approach has no side effects
on the working code. And very low probability of something go wrong.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-28 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-27 23:39 [PATCH] Round-down years in "years+months" relative date view David Reiss
2009-08-28 6:05 ` Jeff King
2009-08-28 7:58 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 15:02 ` Jeff King
2009-08-28 17:00 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 17:15 ` Jeff King
2009-08-28 18:21 ` Alex Riesen [this message]
2009-08-28 22:01 ` A Large Angry SCM
2009-08-28 17:28 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-28 18:01 ` Jeff King
2009-08-28 18:27 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 18:39 ` Jeff King
2009-08-28 18:42 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 18:49 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 19:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-28 19:08 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 19:27 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-28 19:49 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 20:01 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-28 19:03 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 19:15 ` Jeff King
2009-08-28 19:20 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 19:33 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 20:52 ` [PATCH] Allow testing of _relative family of time formatting and parsing functions Alex Riesen
2009-08-28 20:54 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-29 21:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-30 7:25 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-30 7:51 ` Jeff King
2009-08-30 8:10 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-30 9:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] Add date formatting and parsing functions relative to a given time Alex Riesen
2009-08-30 9:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] Allow testing of _relative family of time formatting and parsing functions Alex Riesen
2009-08-30 9:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] Add date formatting and parsing functions relative to a given time Jeff King
2009-08-30 9:36 ` Jeff King
2009-08-30 9:56 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-30 10:08 ` Jeff King
2009-08-30 11:17 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-30 21:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Jeff King
2009-08-30 21:51 ` Jeff King
2009-08-31 2:22 ` Jeff King
2009-08-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Jeff King
2009-08-31 6:08 ` Alex Riesen
2009-08-31 2:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] refactor test-date interface Jeff King
2009-08-31 2:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] tests: add date printing and parsing tests Jeff King
2009-09-01 3:03 ` Jeff King
2009-08-31 2:31 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] fix approxidate parsing of relative months and years Jeff King
2009-08-30 21:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] refactor test-date interface Jeff King
2009-08-30 21:47 ` [PATCH 3/3] tests: add date printing and parsing tests Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=81b0412b0908281121s1d37a0cdj1cdd0595014124e7@mail.gmail.com \
--to=raa.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=dreiss@facebook.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).