[threeten-dev] Please help to review new test code for java.time.calendars.HijrahChronology

[Stephen Colebourne]

There is not a one-to-one mapping from an ISO year to a Hijrah year,
because the ISO year is longer than a Hijrah year. Thus, you can't really
say that ISO proleptic year  621 "equals" year 1 AH. What you could say is
that one date within year 621 "equals" one date in year 1 AH.

This does not seem to change your test cases.

In the webrev:
- you no longer need "groups=tck", as the TCK tests are now a separate
directory structure

Stephen


On 30 January 2013 06:26, Patrick Zhang <patrick.zhang at oracle.com> wrote:

> **
> Hi Team,
>
> Please help to review below new added test case:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pzhang/JSR310/java/time/calendars/HijrahChronology/test/java/time/tck/java/time/calendars/TestHijrahChronology.java.udiff.html
>
> test result:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pzhang/JSR310/java/time/calendars/HijrahChronology/TestHijrahChronology.jtr
>
> Description:
> The new added test cases are used for prolepticYear() and isLeapYear().
> 1. As description of HijrahChronology, year 2,5,7,10,,13,16,18,21,24,26
> and 29 will be leap years. So add test_isLeapYear() to check it. And for
> leap year, date(prolepticYear, 12, 30) should be equal with
> dateYearDay(prolepticYear, 355). For non-leap year, date(prolepticYear, 12,
> 29) should be equal with dateYearDay(prolepticYear, 354).
>
> 2. We can get below table from definition of HijrahChronology:    ISO
> prolepticYear 618
>  619
>  620
>  621
>  622
>  623
>  624
>  ...
>   year of ERA_AH -2
>  -1
>  0
>  1
>  2
>  3
>  4
>  ...
>   year of ERA_BEFORE_AH 3
>  2
>  1
>  0
>  -1
>  -2
>  -3
>  ...
>
> From above table, then we can get return value of prolepticYear():
>     prolepticYear(ERA_AH, a) = a;
>     prolepticYear(ERA_BEFORE_AH, a) +  prolepticYear(ERA_AH, a) = 1; It
> means prolepticYear(ERA_BEFORE_AH, a)= 1-a.
>
> Above logic has been verified in test_prolepticYear()
>
>
> Regards
> Patrick
>