[Bug] worktree prune --expires

[Bug] worktree prune --expires

[Randall S. Becker]

Hi Team,

This is pretty much just a quibble, but the command parser for worktree
prune --expires should really report when a timestamp is invalid. For
example:

worktree prune --expires A:30 actually

actually appears to process the prune going back a very long time instead of
reporting that A:30 isn't a good timestamp.

Experienced using git 2.29.2 in Cygwin - not my usual space and git 2.31.0
on NonStop.

I suspect that this should use the same timestamp parse as for other
commands, although I also noticed that git log --since accepts the same
syntactically awkward time. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Randall


-- Brief whoami:
 NonStop developer since approximately 211288444200000000
 UNIX developer since approximately 421664400
-- In my real life, I talk too much.

Re: [Bug] worktree prune --expires

[Junio C Hamano]

"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:

> This is pretty much just a quibble, but the command parser for worktree
> prune --expires should really report when a timestamp is invalid. For
> example:
>
> worktree prune --expires A:30 actually

Assuming that you had "git" in front, and spelled "--expire" without
the extra 's':

$ git worktree prune --expire no.such.date
fatal: malformed expiration date 'no.such.date'

So apparently, "A:30" is taken as a expiration date that is not
malformed.

$ git rev-parse --since=A:30 --until=now
--max-age=1617138312
--min-age=1617138312

Appears to show that A:30 is interpreted as the same as 'now', but
thta is an unlucky coincidence of the day.

What happens in this case is that "A:" is discarded as cruft (just
like dots are discarded in "git log --since=8.days.ago"), and only
the "30" takes effect of filling an unspecified "date of the month"
[*1*].  And then the remainder is taken from the wallclock time, and
that is how the above "rev-parse" shows the same for A:30 and now,
as it is the 30th of the month for me right now.

$ git rev-parse --since=A:31 --until=now
--max-age=1617224881
--min-age=1617138481

gives me the same time tomorrow (for the same reason that today's
30th for me).


[Footnote]

*1* In A:30, there is no "date of month", "month", "year",
etc. specified, so we start from all unspecified, take the first
number that is discovered (i.e. 30) and fill "date of the month"
with it.

RE: [Bug] worktree prune --expires

[Randall S. Becker]

On March 30, 2021 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Bug] worktree prune --expires
> 
> "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
> 
> > This is pretty much just a quibble, but the command parser for
> > worktree prune --expires should really report when a timestamp is
> > invalid. For
> > example:
> >
> > worktree prune --expires A:30 actually
> 
> Assuming that you had "git" in front, and spelled "--expire" without the
extra
> 's':

Yes, it was. I just transcribed it badly.

> $ git worktree prune --expire no.such.date
> fatal: malformed expiration date 'no.such.date'
> 
> So apparently, "A:30" is taken as a expiration date that is not malformed.
> 
> $ git rev-parse --since=A:30 --until=now
> --max-age=1617138312
> --min-age=1617138312
> 
> Appears to show that A:30 is interpreted as the same as 'now', but thta is
an
> unlucky coincidence of the day.
> 
> What happens in this case is that "A:" is discarded as cruft (just like
dots are
> discarded in "git log --since=8.days.ago"), and only the "30" takes effect
of
> filling an unspecified "date of the month"
> [*1*].  And then the remainder is taken from the wallclock time, and that
is
> how the above "rev-parse" shows the same for A:30 and now, as it is the
> 30th of the month for me right now.
> 
> $ git rev-parse --since=A:31 --until=now
> --max-age=1617224881
> --min-age=1617138481
> 
> gives me the same time tomorrow (for the same reason that today's 30th for
> me).
> 
> 
> [Footnote]
> 
> *1* In A:30, there is no "date of month", "month", "year", etc. specified,
so
> we start from all unspecified, take the first number that is discovered
(i.e. 30)
> and fill "date of the month"
> with it.

Well, sounds a bit like an elbow test situation. The question is, what to do
about it, if anything, I suppose. I didn't even put the "30" in context
while testing. Oops.