From attila.lendvai at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 13:26:49 2007 From: attila.lendvai at gmail.com (Attila Lendvai) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:26:49 +0100 Subject: [Cl-perec-devel] Re: darcs patch: fix date-of-last-day-for-partial-date In-Reply-To: References: <20071220002158.A98A219723@jochus.localdomain> Message-ID: > Hello, hi, i hope you don't mind that i cc the list. > > Do you think that your patch will correctly return: > > > > 2007-02-28 for 2007-02 > > 2007-03-31 for 2007-03 > > 2007-04-30 for 2007-04 > > It does for me :) > > PRC> (date-of-last-day-for-partial-date "2007-02") > "2007-02-28" > PRC> (date-of-last-day-for-partial-date "2007-03") > "2007-03-31" > PRC> (date-of-last-day-for-partial-date "2007-04") > "2007-04-30" > > Before it would return: > > PRC> (date-of-last-day-for-partial-date "2007-02") > "2007-03-01" > PRC> (date-of-last-day-for-partial-date "2007-03") > "2007-04-01" > PRC> (date-of-last-day-for-partial-date "2007-04") > "2007-05-01" i couldn't reproduce the breakage, but you changes look good and work fine so i've pushed them. thanks! > Even then, ASDF had two hiccups compiling everything: > > - a warning with closer-mop-utility-package (which I just "accepted" > and things seemed to be fine) and a yeah, we also do that. we load it in the image so it was not annoying enough to report/debug... :) > - a error with alexandria's control-flow and not knowing what > MAKE-GENSYM-LIST is (which was an easy fix and I have a patch for). i've pushed a fix to alexandria (missing dependency in the .asd) > > Did the test suite more or less passed? > > Yes, after lots of setting up I got it where I pass nearly all the > tests (+ a couple warnings I simply ignored): > > PRCT> (asdf:oos 'asdf:test-op 'cl-perec-test.postgresql) > ... > # > > The 9 failures were type inheritance errors. When you run (retest) you > get 2 other extra errors. I remember trying to look into this stuff, but > I gave after finding myself running in circles. If you want more > information (about the errors), let me know. these are known issues. i guess we should add with-expected-failures to stefil... > > What kind of problems did you have with it so far? > > Mostly just those that I have mentioned. I haven't actually gotten > around to *using* the thing. I was mostly evaluating my options for > persistent storage, and although cl-perec looks *very* cool, I'm a > little hesitant. Mostly because of: > > - the amount of privately maintained repositories scares me (it forces > me to wonder what would happen should the project, heaven forbid, > find itself abandoned) most of them are basically the HEAD of the official repos, sometimes lagging behind if there were non-compatible changes in the official that we haven't followed yet, or holding one or two fixes that are being sent to the maintainers. i think the only repo holding a bigger change is postmodern: our version uses local-time for the time related values and it wasn't yet incorporated into the official (mostly because it removes support for time intervals and the maintainer didn't know local-time enough at that time to decide). > - the fact that I don't predictable results with the test cases and > there are 9 failures ...but there are 2105 non-failing assertions... ;) if we find something bogus, we usually add a failing test right on. > - the fact that there's no documentation and some of the code I don't > quite understand yet. i (we) can't promise anything about the documentation. i agree that some bird's view doc is missing, but imho any other effort should be put in the code and the test-suite instead. i hope it answers some of the issues. otherwise feel free to ask! happy hacking! err, i mean merry christmas! :) -- attila