[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18060116#comment-18060116
]
Gary D. Gregory commented on LANG-771:
--------------------------------------
Hello [~indy]
Thank you for your PR.
This needs additional tests for:
* The oldest Date possible
* A realistic negative Date like -1
* Date 0
* the Date farthest in the future possible
> DateUtils.ceiling does not behave correctly for dates on the boundaries
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LANG-771
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-771
> Project: Commons Lang
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: lang.time.*
> Affects Versions: 3.0.1
> Environment: Windows XP Professional
> Java 1.6
> Reporter: Ryan Holmes
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Patch Needed
>
>
> {{DateUtils.ceiling}} does not behave as expected for dates exactly on the
> boundaries specified.
> To be consistent with the name "ceiling", it follows that if a date is
> already at its "ceiling", it should not be pushed any higher. Yet the
> current implementation (and, it would appear, all implementations since its
> creation) of {{DateUtils.ceiling}} push a value exactly on its ceiling to the
> next value.
> Observe what happens if the following tests are added to
> {{DateUtilsTest.testCeil()}}:
> {code:java}
> double double4 = 15.0;
> assertEquals("ceiling double-4 failed",
> double4,
> Math.ceil(double4));
>
> Date date4 = dateTimeParser.parse("March 30, 2003 01:10:00.000");
> assertEquals("ceiling minute-4 failed",
> date4,
> DateUtils.ceiling(date4, Calendar.MINUTE));
> {code}
> The first assert passes, as Math.ceil behaves as it should (i.e.
> Mail.ceil(15.0) = 15.0).
> However, the second assert fails with:
> {code}
> ceiling minute-4 failed expected:<Sun Mar 30 01:10:00 GMT+08:00 2003> but
> was:<Sun Mar 30 01:11:00 GMT+08:00 2003>
> {code}
> as the routine incorrectly (I believe) pushes the value to the next minute.
> Either the method is incorrectly named ([as previously
> suggested|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-434?focusedCommentId=12855836#comment-12855836])
> or it should probably be corrected to be consistent with expected behaviour
> (using Math.ceil as a benchmark).
> If changing the behaviour of {{DateUtils.ceiling}} is perceived to have too
> many flow-on effects (e.g. backwards compatibility issues) then perhaps it
> should be renamed to {{DateUtils.ceil}} to make it consistent with the Math
> class method name and to make the change in behaviour obvious (and perhaps
> also have a {{DateUtils.floor}} as a synonym for {{DateUtils.truncate}}).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
