<i18n dev> Review request for JDK-8066982: ZonedDateTime.parse() returns wrong ZoneOffset around DST fall transition

[Stephen Colebourne]

I remain happy with the webrev
Stephen

On 14 December 2015 at 08:14, Ramanand Patil <ramanand.patil at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Roger and all,
>
> Please review the updated Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/ramanand/8066982/webrev.02/
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066982
>
>
> Roger, please see my comments about new tests:
>
> - All my test methods were earlier generic with main method and hence had private static qualifier. I have changed them now to match and to be consistent with the existing tests. Thank you for pointing this.
>
> - I agree with you on this. Particularly when we have tests around DST we can’t avoid timezone data.
>
> - I have defined dataProvider for every method and reduced the test data for cases where zone is not present(testWithoutZoneWithoutOffset() and testWithOffsetWithoutZone()).
> But for the other 2 cases where zone is present(testWithZoneWithOffset() and testWithZoneWithoutOffset()), I feel most of the data cases are necessary and some are required to be on safer side if in future the timezone rule changes. Also, this bug fix mainly affects these cases.
> I have created the dataProvider kepping in mind the below cases for 2 DST zones.
> 1. Time before overlap
> 2. Time during Overlap
> 3. Time after overlap
> 4. Valid Offsets for each of these times
> 5. Zero Offset for each time
> 6. Few Positive and negative invalid offsets for each time
>
>
> Regards,
> Ramanand.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Riggs
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 1:37 AM
> To:  HYPERLINK "mailto:core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net" core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Cc:  HYPERLINK "mailto:i18n-dev at openjdk.java.net" i18n-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: <i18n dev> Review request for JDK-8066982: ZonedDateTime.parse() returns wrong ZoneOffset around DST fall transition
>
> Hi,
>
> Stephen, can you  confirm that the added text and test in DateTimeFormatter is not a specification change?
> Our processes have a bit more to do if it is a spec change and it would limit the backport to JDK 8.
>
> This bug fix will cause an existing TCK/JCK test to fail but that is considered also a bug and is fixed.
>      test/java/time/tck/java/time/TCKZonedDateTime.java
>
> Ramanand, some comments on the new test:
>   - The 'private' qualifier on the tests and data providers is not used in the current tests and
>      is not consistently present in the new one.
>      Since it has little/no function, the tests would be a bit cleaner without it.
>
>   - Typically, test that have data dependencies (such as the timezone
> data) cannot be used for
>      compatibility to the specification, but the data is stable and it seems unavoidable in this case.
>
>   - Are all of the data cases necessary to validate the specification?
>     Redundant cases extend the testing time without adding more confidence to the quality.
>
> Thanks,  Roger
>
>
> On 12/10/2015 11:00 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> I believe this is suitable for committing, thanks, other reviews welcome!
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 December 2015 at 15:36, Ramanand Patil < HYPERLINK "mailto:ramanand.patil at oracle.com" ramanand.patil at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Please review the updated webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8066982/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> I have modified the fix and test cases as per inputs given by Stephen. Also, I have added the javadocs changes in this patch which were proposed in the bug.
>>>
>>> Bug link is: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066982
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ramanand.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne at joda.org]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 4:46 PM
>>> To: core-libs-dev
>>> Cc: i18n-dev
>>> Subject: Re: <i18n dev> Review request for JDK-8066982:
>>> ZonedDateTime.parse() returns wrong ZoneOffset around DST fall
>>> transition
>>>
>>> The logic looks fine.
>>>
>>> In the main code, this part
>>>    .getLong(INSTANT_SECONDS);
>>> can be replaced with
>>>    .toEpochSecond();
>>> which will be slightly faster.
>>>
>>> In the test case, this part
>>>   .plus(15, ChronoUnit.MINUTES);
>>> can be replaced with
>>>   .plusMinutes(15)
>>>
>>> And
>>>   .with(ChronoField.OFFSET_SECONDS,
>>> ZoneOffset.of(offsetSamples[j]).getTotalSeconds())
>>> can be replaced with
>>>   .with(ZoneOffset.of(offsetSamples[j]))
>>>
>>> In addition to the looping tests, I'd like to see the examples from the bug report as test cases. Those tests would be simple to follow and explain, whereas the looping tests are a little hard to follow.
>>>
>>> thanks for fixing this
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 December 2015 at 07:44, Ramanand Patil < HYPERLINK "mailto:ramanand.patil at oracle.com" ramanand.patil at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> HI all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please review a fix for Bug  - HYPERLINK
>>>> "https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066982"JDK-8066982
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bug - Parsing a string with ZonedDateTime.parse() that contains zone offset and zone ID "Europe/Berlin" returns a wrong ZonedDateAndTime (different offset). This error starts exactly at the transition time (included) and ends one hour later (excluded).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8066982/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One existing test case in TCKZonedDateTime.java is also modified, because - when offset is invalid the local time is changed to make the result valid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ramanand.
>