gh-91581: Check result of utc_to_seconds #91582
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
pganssle
force-pushed
the
check_results_seconds_error
branch
from
9113132 to
c22c81d
Compare
pganssle
force-pushed
the
check_results_seconds_error
branch
from
c22c81d to
0242b88
Compare
|
I would add tests for Dec 30, 1 BCE and Dec 31, 1 BCE. |
pganssle
force-pushed
the
check_results_seconds_error
branch
from
0242b88 to
7a0af95
Compare
|
Thanks for the review Serhiy!
It changes the error message but not in any way that I am prepared to make assertions about — this is a mostly cosmetic change for consistency. I'm not even sure that the error message is the same across the C and Python implementations. I generally like to add a NEWS entry for code changes anyway, in case the change had an unexpected effect and someone is looking for hints as to what might have caused the behavior change in the changelog.
Done, and when doing that I refactored the relevant tests to get us a lot closer to the actual limits we're expecting. This turned up some other issues around these edge cases, so I've added this comment to #91012. Fixing that should let us make these tests a lot cleaner. As part of the refactor I ended up tweaking the pure Python implementation of |
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2022-04-15-13-16-25.gh-issue-91581.9OGsrN.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
serhiy-storchaka
approved these changes
May 12, 2022
The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes pythonGH-91581
pganssle
force-pushed
the
check_results_seconds_error
branch
from
28d8ca1 to
55a77c1
Compare
pganssle
added
🔨 test-with-buildbots
bedevere-bot
removed
the
🔨 test-with-buildbots
|
Thanks @pganssle for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9, 3.10, 3.11. |
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2022
…thonGH-91582) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes pythonGH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
|
GH-92745 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2022
…thonGH-91582) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes pythonGH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
|
GH-92746 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch. |
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2022
…thonGH-91582) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes pythonGH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
|
GH-92748 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch. |
miss-islington
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 14, 2022
…-91582) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes GH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
miss-islington
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 14, 2022
…-91582) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes GH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
ambv
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2022
…-91582) (GH-92748) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes GH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
hello-adam
pushed a commit
to hello-adam/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2022
…thonGH-91582) (pythonGH-92748) The `utc_to_seconds` call can fail, here's a minimal reproducer on Linux: TZ=UTC python -c "from datetime import *; datetime.fromtimestamp(253402300799 + 1)" The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast. This also refactors the tests to split out the `fromtimestamp` and `utcfromtimestamp` tests, and to get us closer to the actual desired limits of the functions. As part of this, we also changed the way we detect platforms where the same limits don't necessarily apply (e.g. Windows). As part of refactoring the tests to hit this condition explicitly (even though the user-facing behvior doesn't change in any way we plan to guarantee), I noticed that there was a difference in the places that `datetime.utcfromtimestamp` fails in the C and pure Python versions, which was fixed by skipping the "probe for fold" logic for UTC specifically — since UTC doesn't have any folds or gaps, we were never going to find a fold value anyway. This should prevent some failures in the pure python `utcfromtimestamp` method on timestamps close to 0001-01-01. There are two separate news entries for this because one is a potentially user-facing change, the other is an internal code correctness change that, if anything, changes some error messages. The two happen to be coupled because of the test refactoring, but they are probably best thought of as independent changes. Fixes pythonGH-91581 (cherry picked from commit 83c0247) Co-authored-by: Paul Ganssle <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This result could fail. On Linux here's a minimal reproducer:
The old behavior still raised an error in a similar way, but only because subsequent calculations happened to fail as well. Better to fail fast.
Fixes GH-91581