RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

[Daniel Fuchs]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
It really helps reviewing the fix!

This looks reasonable to me. One minor nit is that you
could turn:

769         BigInteger maxintAsBigInteger = BigInteger.valueOf((long) 
Integer.MAX_VALUE);

into a static final constant in the class.

best regards,

-- daniel

On 6/17/14 9:19 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a long time compatibility issue: Duration.compare returns equal
> for INDETERMINATE relations defined in XML Schema standard
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration-order) as listed in the
> following table:
>
>      Relation
> P*1Y*     > P*364D*     <> P*365D*         <> P*366D*     < P*367D*
> P*1M*     > P*27D*     <> P*28D*     <> P*29D*     <> P*30D*     <>
> P*31D*     < P*32D*
> P*5M*     > P*149D*     <> P*150D*     <> P*151D*     <> P*152D*     <>
> P*153D*     < P*154D*
>
>
>
> The order-relation of two Duratoin values x and y is x < y iff s+x < s+y
> for each qualified datetime s listed below:
>
>   * 1696-09-01T00:00:00Z
>   * 1697-02-01T00:00:00Z
>   * 1903-03-01T00:00:00Z
>   * 1903-07-01T00:00:00Z
>
>
> The original implementation used Unix epoch, that is, 00:00:00 UTC on 1
> January 1970, as s in the above calculation which violated the above
> specification. A patch during JDK 6 development added correct
> implementation of the spec, but it was unfortunately added after the
> original calculation using Epoch time.
>
> *The fix to the issue therefore is simply removing the calculation using
> Epoch time.* I also consolidated the tedious max field value checks into
> a method called checkMaxValue.
>
> *Patch:*
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/5077522/webrev/
>
> Test:
> testCompareWithInderterminateRelation: this is a copy of the JCK test
> that tests INDETERMINATE relations.
> testVerifyOtherRelations: this is added to verify edge cases, e.g. +- 1
> second to the original test cases. For example, to the original test:
> PT525600M is P365D <> P1Y, I added "PT525599M59S", "<", "P1Y", and
> PT527040M -> P366D <> P1Y, "PT527040M1S", ">", "P1Y"
>
> Below is the test result:
> Comparing P1Y and P365D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P1Y and P366D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P1M and P28D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P1M and P29D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P1M and P30D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P1M and P31D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P5M and P150D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P5M and P151D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P5M and P152D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P5M and P153D: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT2419200S and P1M: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT2678400S and P1M: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT31536000S and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT31622400S and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT525600M and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT527040M and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT8760H and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing PT8784H and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P365D and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
> Comparing P1Y and P364D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing P1Y and P367D: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing P1Y2D and P366D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing P1M and P27D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing P1M and P32D: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing P1M and P31DT1H: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing P5M and P149D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing P5M and P154D: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing P5M and P153DT1H: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing PT2419199S and P1M: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing PT2678401S and P1M: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing PT31535999S and P1Y: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing PT31622401S and P1Y: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing PT525599M59S and P1Y: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing PT527040M1S and P1Y: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
> Comparing PT8759H59M59S and P1Y: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
> Comparing PT8784H1S and P1Y: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
>
> Number of tests passed: 36
> Number of tests failed: 0
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>