lib/util:tests/time.c - "test_timestring" - fix it on Solaris

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Okay, I thought such a little difference (the "0" or not) wouldn't 
matter - but I will revert.

Matthias

Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:38 +0300, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>    
>> I guess you have to introduce a test in  lib/util/wscript_configure to
>> define
>> HAVE_CORRECT_STRFTIME by testing the output of strftime() and if the
>> output is not ok then we should use asctime (at least on sun8 it seems ok).
>>      
> I think we should rather try to keep all platform-specific workarounds
> in lib/replace. So if the strftime() doesn't do what we expect it to I
> think we should add a strftime() replacement to lib/replace.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>
>    
>> Have a look at changeset 4ea7d4694a8353fc55ecd12cb09b9c91ffde7b3f
>> On 06/12/2010 05:59, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>
>> Matthieu.
>>      
>>> On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 23:10 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>>        
>>>> The branch, master has been updated
>>>>          via  654e010 lib/util:tests/time.c - "test_timestring" - fix it on Solaris
>>>>         from  55dba7b s4:cluster/cluster.h - fix another gcc 3.4 "struct" warning
>>>>
>>>> http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=shortlog;h=master
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> commit 654e0102ddb0acaaf45fb55c15818722235fcc9f
>>>> Author: Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer<mdw at samba.org>
>>>> Date:   Sun Dec 5 22:20:06 2010 +0100
>>>>
>>>>       lib/util:tests/time.c - "test_timestring" - fix it on Solaris
>>>>
>>>>       Solaris returns "Thu Jan 01" and not "Thu Jan  1" - therefore proof for
>>>>       both.
>>>>          
>>> I'm not sure that this patch is correct.
>>>
>>> Given we had a test for a particular value, and we carefully build the
>>> value with strftime() if available, why does this patch accept different
>>> values, rather than fix the the timestring() function?
>>>
>>> In general, I'm suspicious of patches that fix tests by changing the
>>> test result rather than fixing the original function.
>>>
>>> Perhaps none of the callers care, as long as it's clear to human readers
>>> of the string, but there are rather a lot of callers to this function.
>>>
>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>
>