On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:49:47 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > # Failed test at t/02_examples.t line 231. > > > # got: '2015' > > > # expected: '2005'
> I can confirm this, and it seem that it was reported upstream already > 5 days ago: http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=53344 I looked at the upstream bug report, the code and ISO8601:2000(E) now; if I understand it correctly - a date of "-Y..." implies the decade - the code currently adds the decade either from base_datetime or in its absence from the current time - the test has a year of "5" - which evaluates to 2015 since 2010-01-01 (unless there's base_datetime but that's not set in the test) My tentative conclusion is that the code is correct, but the test has a problem. The quick fix would be to change the expected value in the tests to 2015; but that will lead to problems again in 10 years. So maybe adding a base_datetime would be more futureproof? Or testing for a range of possible results? Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Joe Cocker: Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
